Optimal license for Java projects ...
David Johnson
david at usermode.org
Sat Mar 15 02:45:59 UTC 2003
On Friday 14 March 2003 03:25 am, John Cowan wrote:
> It does take away the customer's freedom to use *every* improved
> version whatsoever, because someone may make an improved version and
> issue it as non-free software.
Of course. But that was not the orginal poster's complaint about the BSD
license. For many people, proprietary forks are not an issue, for
others they are. But the complaint that "commercial parties can take
the source away" is just not valid.
I was merely trying to get the poster to think beyond the anti-BSD
stereotypes that are so common. His claim was merely a restatement of
the tired "BSD is a license to steal" argument.
> > The point is, your [e&e] scenario has never occured.
>
> That's not clear. For example, Microsoft's command-line FTP client
> does incorporate BSD-licensed code; at least, a troll through ftp.exe
> with "strings" reveals the UCB copyright notice.
But Microsoft has not "embraced and extended" ftp, which is what the
scenario was describing, and which is what you admit as well. The
scenario did, however, coincide rather nicely with the urban legend
that Microsoft "stole" Kerberos.
"Embrace and extend" is an issue that transcends mere licensing. No
license is going to prevent it, and only a few could impede it with any
significant result.
--
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list