I honestly don't think if you get Theo's email that there is any hope for you but let me try to add to it.
First lets start off with the fact that you are NOT allowed to change the SOURCE license. So joe-schmoe-programmer takes moo.c which is ISC licensed and adds some crud to it. He can decide to release his code under the original license or he can be be a giant bag of douche and release them under an alternative license. This is only true for the changes; the original license on the file CAN NOT be changed. BTW this is also true when someone submits a BSD licensed patch to a GPL'd file. Same doucheness applies too. Respect the authors license or leave the file alone. Joe-schmoe-proprietary programmer wants to also use moo.c; he takes the code and uses it within his framework. Great, his binary contains my-EVIL-EULA, the source file retains the original copyright and license. It is completely and utterly irrelevant what the binary license is. Say it again with me, it is IRRELEVANT what the BINARY license is as long as the SOURCE license is left intact. So you can go around all day long parroting what RMS says, it still will not make it true. I can't help that the man does not comprehend copyright law. On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:04:56AM +0000, Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 08:06:35PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you > may > > > > write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify > my > > > > license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this: > > > > > > If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a > > > proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no > > > requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > licence by the proprietary developers. > > > > When a vendor distributes parts of our source code -- as source code, > > the license is extremely clear. Let me quote it, and mark it up a > > bit: > > > > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > * are met: > > ^^^^^^^ > > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Is that too hard to read? > > I'm not suggesting that the licence of the BSD code should be violated, > but that it's possible for it to become covered by an additional licence > - an application, under either a proprietary EULA or the GPL, that > includes some code under a BSD licence. The BSD licence does not cease > to apply, but the non-BSD developer is not required to make *their changes* > to the BSD code available under the BSD licence. A proprietary developer > can modify it and keep the changes to itself. A GPL developer can modify > it and release the changes under the GPL, though any unmodified code > would still, of course, be under the BSD licence. > > > > Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me, > > > and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any > > > changes to your sections of the code under your licence. > > > > Not should. MUST. Read the license text again. Even if it was not > > stated in the licence term, it is a Copyright right which the author > > retains unless he surrenders it. > > They're not required to make their changes available. They're required > to acknowledge your copyright, but your licence does not require > proprietary developers to release changes at all and it does not require > GPL developers to release changes under your choice of licence. > > > > The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence, > > > > None of the licenses we are talking about allow "changing the > > license". > > > > > but it > > > doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it. > > > > That's bullshit. Read it again. The BSD license gives the recipient > > some abilities, but retains others. One of those is that the source > > code must retain the license. Other restrictions... why do we care? > > Our code is still alive. > > > > HP and Cisco has included OpenSSH -- with changes they did not give > > back we are sure -- in all their router products, and none of you > > would argue that the world is not a richer place because of that. As > > a result of our giving nature, the internet at large is much more > > secure now. > > This is my point exactly: why should a GPL developer be forced to give > their *changes* back? They're still required to acknowledge your > copyright, but if HP and Cisco are permitted to keep changes to > themselves, why shouldn't the GNU project or the Linux kernel do so (or, > rather, release their changes to the code under a licence that isn't > useful to OpenBSD). > > Please note that I don't think it's at all fair for a free software > project to behave like that, and modifications to OpenBSD code should be > given back to OpenBSD, but if a proprietary company doesn't have to give > changes back to OpenBSD in a way that's useful to OpenBSD, why should > GNU or Linux be required to do so? > > Ben > > [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which > had a name of signature.asc]
