On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:57:54 -0400, Rjack wrote: > Rui Maciel wrote: >> Rjack wrote: >> >>> Why do you want to take control of another author's BSD licensed code? >>> The BSD author has already freely offered it to anyone who chooses to >>> use it. Only anti-capitalist GPL control freaks want to control other >>> author's source code. >> >> The funny thing is that quite a few companies enjoy picking up >> BSD-licensed software, include it in their software and proceed to act >> as if it was written by the company itself. > > That's the intent of the BSD license -- use it as you wish or maybe > don't use it at all -- it's your choice. That's *real* freedom.
No, the intent is for the copyrights to remain in place. > >> That is also the case with GPL software but thankfully, as soon as the >> jig is up, the courts quickly force the offending companies to respect >> their copyright agreement. > > Not in U.S. jurisdictions. > > FACT: No claim for any relief requested by a GPL license violation > plaintiff has ever been granted by a United States Federal Court. All > GPL complaints have been voluntarily withdrawn long before a judge could > ever read a single word of the license. The cases have been settled, not withdrawn. And, AFAIK, the cases have resulted in the source code being distributed. > > The point of Matt Assay's CNET article: > > Free software is dead. Long live open source > http://news.cnet.com/openroad/ > > is that companies are abandoning thoughts of incorporating GPL licensed > code in their products. They are? > > The GPL's failure is the fanatic desire of its authors to control other > folk's contributions. The GPL doesn't try to control anything. It was written to make sure code couldn't be removed from community benefit. > The goal of open source software is not to promote > an anti-capitalist, religious experience with a control freak like > Richard Stallman. The goal of open source software is to write code that > others can freely inspect, learn from, contribute to and use as they > wish if they so desire. > > The idiotic attempt by Richard Stallman to re-define the meaning of the > word "free" is an abject failure. Stallman has not tried to re-difine free. Get a dictionary. > > Sincerely, > Rjack >> So no, you got it backwards. >> >> >> Rui Maciel Do you really believe this tripe you are spewing? -- Rick _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss