Contributed by webmaster on from the darren-and-his-licence dept.
"Redistribution and use, with or without modification, in source and binary forms, are permitted provided that this notice is preserved in its entirety and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."I hate to suggest it, but I wonder if this means we will be being seeing it introduced back into OpenBSD (at least into the ports tree) sometime soon?"
pf has come a long way, not much of a chance there methinks.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward () on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Niekze () niekze@yahoo.com on http://www.nothingkillsfaster.com
By Anonymous Coward () on
By wysoft () on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Magnus Bodin () on http://x42.com/
The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
copied, in part or in whole, and put under another distribution licence
[including the GNU Public Licence.]
Which is NOT BSD. But who cares anymore now when we have pf?
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
Think about it. If you write some code, and put it under the BSD license, you still own the copyright. Someone still can't just copy all your code and relicense it as something else. Even if they were to take the code and combine it with (for example) GPL code, the code you wrote is still yours, and still BSD licensed, and thus the whole work still can't be GPL licensed unless you agree to change the license on the stuff you wrote.
So if someone uses the BSD license plus a statement like this, I submit that it's still the BSD license. It doesn't *really* add any conditions that aren't present in the original.
Then again, I could be confused. I really can't keep up with what's Free Software and what's Open Source and what's Open Software or Free Source any more. There are like 1,000,000 different licenses now.
Comments
By The Tronitikian () on
Actually, yes - they can. That's one of the huge advantages of the BSD license - it gives the freedom to others to take the code and do anything with it to make it suit their needs. Albeit, slapping a different name or license on it doesn't do much good, and more importantly - even if I make TronitikOS tomorrow using OBSD as my base, it wouldn't cause OpenBSD to go away, nor would it cause OBSD's license to change, even if TronitikOS is closed source, sell your soul-to-meware.
A lot of people try to say things like "GPL is 'Free' as in 'Freedom'" or "Free as in Beer" Here's how I think of it:
BSD is an anarchy: you take from it what you want and there aren't any laws/restrictions to stop you, even if you end up creating your own laws/restrictions. In this way it reflects life pretty well. :)
GNU/GPL is a liberal state: it wants everyone to be good, so it has a few simple fundamental laws/restrictions to keep order.
Taking this analogy, there's nothing stopping a BSD-licensed (anarchistic in the example?) from becoming something more restricted, e.g. GPL.
It's sorta like Wu-wei, the chaos before Tai Chi... it can become anything. I love it; not to say that I don't like GPL or anything either, but all GPL zealots who argue against BSDlicenses are really missing a big point: they can just GPL the BSD stuff and have their way too, it's sorta pointless, because it doesn't remove the BSD original, but it grants them the securityblanket of thinking that they have more control of what they contribute to.
One more thing that might make BSD make more sense: if someone can take a BSD source base, close the source, rename it and charge for it (which happens all the time), then why in the world should there be some restriction about changing the license to something like the GPL, or anything else for that matter? It's doesn't remove the existence of the BSD roots upon which the product was based after all.
Goofiness.
Start small with understanding the Free/Open license stuff, if you can wrap your mind around BSD and GPL licenses you're pretty well set. Look to _Free for All_ as a good history/account too, with some decent OBSD coverage even!
The only thing I can think of that you may be getting hung up on is if an author starts off with a BSD license, and then migrates to something else down the line... well, even if he'd -like- to, he can't change the licenses on earlier releases - leaving those open to free reign still; this sorta premise is what happened with the development of ssh + OpenSSH. But now I'm getting way off topic...
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Anonymous Coward () on
A sign of instability, and we have no place for unstable anything, either development or stable .
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward () on
By Deus Ex Machina () root@localhost on mailto:root@localhost
For those that are looking for stability, when will pf become stable on both an operational and source code level ? I would be _VERY_ concerned if the rate of change continued at this level all the way into the release of 3.0!
By Anonymous Cowardly Ex OpenBSD user () you@them.us on mailto:you@them.us
Don't get me wrong- I love OpenBSD. But not enough to take that big a risk.
Comments
By moth () on
By wysoft () on