China and Beastie
2009-06-16
Posted by: badanov
Found the original link to this at Free Republic.
The BSD license is pretty straitforward, as I understand it.
Unlike the GPL you don't have to include the original source code. In fact, you can rename the software, claim it as your own, thank the academy, etc.
But what you must do to distribute the software is to include the copyright notice. You can't remove it for any reason even if you sell it as your own. It must be there. Failing to do so revokes the license to distribute or sell until you do do so.
In using FreeBSD software, you have the same freedom as the GPL: you can add to it, subtract from it, whether or not you distribute it; you are encouraged to contribute code back to the originating project, but if you don't and you don't include the source code, that is okay. Just include the copyright notice.
So, the Freep and Register.co.uk stories are misleading. Pilfering has taken place inasmuch as the firm selling failed to live up to its obligations in using BSD code and that is all. The remedy is simple. Notice of revocation of license and then a lawsuit forcing the inclusion of the copyright notice.
Piferage is the incorrect term here for what the Chinese firm did.
Screwed up is more apt, and the legal remedy is simple.
If you have something to add, Fire Away!
Number of Comments so far: 0
Click here
for a list of stories in the Unix and Computer category