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. 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. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
