Seems Theo De Raadt doesn’t have an issue with people taking and using BSD licensed code anyway they want, from completely locking up and not even saying it’s used like Microsoft does, or saying it’s used but giving absolutely nothing back to anyone like Apple does.
But if someone, say a Linux Kernel dev, does to BSD licensed code what he doesn’t apparently have an issue with closed source proprietary people doing he gets pissed.
Here’s the post on kerneltrap.org
No I’m not a lawyer, and while I want to start learning to code I’m no programmer. But this seems to me that he’s basically pissed that any project that uses the GPL’d license might try to do the exact same.
Fact is, the issue is a non-issue as fact is the code in question was duel licensed and the confusion is basically does the nature of dual licencing allow someone to basically just go with over the other. I’ll leave that question to the lawyers as I have no idea.
My question, and my feeling is, that if this BSD licence, supposedly freer then the GPL. which allows people to lock out anyone from seeing their changes unlike the GPL which requires the receiver to give the same rights to code they got to whomever they distribute to, then why the dust up?
BAsically these guys gave all their code out under a licence that except for having attribution to the original just screams as Captain Jack said, “Take all you can, give nothing back.”
Please, if I’m wrong someone clear it up for me.