DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SCO after BSD settlement

From: Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:52:19 -0500

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 Clause #3 (advertising) was rescinded, yes, but isn't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?
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.

Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]