If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
D00d you are missing the point. The code is no longer opensource. Did you even read anything I wrote?
The code may not be open source after it has been modified but that doesn't change the fact that the BSD licence itself is still an open source licence (according to the OSI definition of "open source"). To say otherwise would mean that there must be some contention about the definition of "open source", even though your Maximal licence assumes that there isn't.
If someone licences their code under a permissive licence such as BSD/MIT and similar they are fully aware that it can be brought into a proprietary project and enhanced without those enhancements being contributed back, BUT they are obviously ok with this since if they weren't they would use other licences (like GPL) which does require source code to be contributed back (if distributed that is).
Bottom line is that there is no perfect licence, since it's all up to individuals to decide under which licence they want to publish their open source code and as always we have different preferences, which is why discussions like these are pretty much pointless and generally just end up confirming Godwin's law. It's up to the author of the code to decide under which conditions other people can use it, the rest of us can can choose to accept these terms or leave it be.
The rest of you obviously have problems understanding this simple concept. There is no reasonable thinking here, just bimbos babbling. So, yes, I do calculate some loss, and instead consider my public those who CAN understand.
You have no case. You learnt that phrase on TV. How much are you even aware of reality? Go into Islam, don`t become sectarians, derive your religion from the Quran, and maybe in 10 years you will understand.