On 2007-06-15 10:07:36 -0500, "J.C. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have
a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why
code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted
and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult
to "prove" a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there
some other reason which I do not understand?
In my admitted legal ignorance, a push for "Public Domain Software"
(i.e. without copyright or license of any sort) might result in the
most truly "Free" software possible?
I believe that there is a difference from Public Domain and BSD type
licenses. Public Domain is indeed the most unencumbered license, but I
think that the BSD does place useful restrictions on the software. To
my understanding, anyone who designs a piece of work under the BSD
license is required to permit redistribution of this changed product,
am I wrong? This is something I've never quite understood.
The BSD-type licenses say that you can redistribute and modify the code
and maybe distribute the software in only binary form, but that the
software and its derivatives must still be licensed under the BSD
license, right?
This makes it useful for commercial applications, wherein companies can
bundle binary only products which use the source code, and not worry
about their secrets go, but if someone were to grab the binaries off of
say, an embedded device or a small form factor router, they would still
be allowed to redistribute this software, right, because the modified
software must have the same license?
Is this the correct interpretation or not?
--
Aaron Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he
could do only a little." - Edmund Burke
