Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -4/24)
by Anonymous Cow (18.104.22.168) on Thu Sep 13 08:57:24 2007 (GMT)
> > Theo is just trying to make things right. Teach the Linux developers that a license must be respected and the source code __MUST__ have the BSD copyright if it is not significantly changed.
> Ok, but what is the point in the 'ath5k_hw.c' case? Why is this a violation? Even for small, insignificant changes, it must be possible for the creator of these changes to claim copyright. Every change to some code starts small. Should the author duplicate the BSD license with his/her/its name? What a waste of bandwidth.
> BTW, Theo also seems not to be really firm with international copyright law. For example, he completely forgets the fact that copyright does not need to be claimed in Germany. If you did something, you have the copyright to it. No claiming necessary. Thus, if somebody changes somethings to a BSD licensed file, but does not put himself into the BSD clause, he actually gives no permissions about his changes to anyone. Thus, nobody is allowed to do anything with the resulting product without explicit concent from the author.
I don't think Theo has forgotten something about international copyright law, as he explains it here:
[ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]
Add Story |
Copyright © 2004-2008
All rights reserved.
Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors,
submission implies license to publish on this web site.
Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images
and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original
Jim's kind permission.
Some icons from slashdot.org
used with permission from Kathleen.
This journal runs as CGI with
on OpenBSD, the
source code is
Search engine is ht://Dig.
undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]