| |||||||||||||
SCO's copyright letterSCO's copyright letterPosted Dec 22, 2003 20:44 UTC (Mon) by botz (guest, #18038)In reply to: SCO's copyright letter by vonbrand Parent article: SCO's copyright letter
> the BSD folks are to blame for Really? I thought, that people, that take BSD code, then change the license and copyright, then release the code under different license should already know, that their actions are illegal.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's copyright letter Posted Dec 22, 2003 21:54 UTC (Mon) by NotReally (guest, #18040) [Link] Not Really.I mean, the current BSD licence doesn't even specify the inclusion of the "Copyright U.C.-B" clause any more. Theo deRaddt's writing on the subject leaves me with the impression that once something has been released under a (modern) BSD licence, you give permission to everyone to do whatever the heck they want to with your code. It's not a coincidence that BSD's TCP/IP stack ended up in MS products...
SCO's copyright letter Posted Dec 23, 2003 10:15 UTC (Tue) by ngg (guest, #18071) [Link] Nope. Sorry.The BSD licence still says that you have to keep the copyright notice in the source code. The reason you know that MS used BSD code is that MS complied with the BSD requirement that binaries reproduce the BSD licence, also. Using the code without including the licence is a copyright violation. This is even true for "modern" BSD code, because (think about it) it is a derivative work of older BSD code.
SCO's copyright letter Posted Dec 23, 2003 16:19 UTC (Tue) by bsdimp (guest, #18082) [Link] YOU ARE INCORRECT.BSD License *REQUIRES* that you maintain the copyright notices. (that's from the errno.h file from 4.4BSD-lite) And no, there's no USL copyright on errno.h, per the settlement. Also, it is unlawful, and in bad taste, to take BSD licensed code, file off the copyright, and then release it under the GPL. I'm not saying that happened in the case of errno.h, but it has happened in the past.
|
|||||||||||||