Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:

> :
> :I'm confused.  Clause #3 (advertising) was rescinded, yes, but isn't
> :Gary referring to clause #2 (original copyright message included with
> :docs/materials, for binaries), which is still very much in the license?
> :
> :-Chris
>  
>     This was brought up long ago.  I am fairly sure that some people ran
>     'strings' on MS windows offerings and found Berkeley copyright messages
>     embedded in the binaries, and I believe someone found copyright
>     messages in certain pieces of documentation as well.
>
>     But even if MS did not follow the requirement to the letter there is
>     no point suing them... what kind of damages could UC extract from them
>     for using free software freely?  Nothing, really.  MS is basically using
>     the code the way we meant it to be used, and it would be silly to take
>     them to task for it.


If Microsft cannot include 3 lines of text in order to satisfy a very 
generous license, then they deserve to be sued. MS is not using the code 
as it was meant to be used as long as they are not abiding by the 
license. To claim otherwise would be ridiculous. BSD is not synonymous 
with public domain after all. The point of a license is to impose 
restrictions, no matter how easy to fulfil. If you want _complete_ 
freedom, make it public domain.

>     The SCO situation is very different.


Not on principle apparently.

> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>