David Kastrup wrote:
RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
RJack <u...@example.net> writes:
I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox,
v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those
command line utilities are substantially similar to the old
BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al.
not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but
BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to
put it illegally under the GPL.
You should try rereading that BSD license. "Appropriating" and
releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license
as long as the original copyright attributions remain intact.
That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright.
And the copyright owner licensed them under the BSD license which
permits incorporation into works licensed differently.
Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to
steal it.
Read the BSD license, joker.
No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code
remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license.
And/or get a clue. IIRC, even some Windows bootup screen mentions
"contains code (C) BSD" and so on. And Windows is not exactly
BSD-licensed.
The whole point of the BSD license is that you can incorporate the
code into differently licensed stuff. As opposed to copyleft.
Incorporate away DAK -- all you want -- still, BSD licensed code remains
under the BSD license and not the GPL license.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss