KDBUS & Systemd Now Yields A Working System

[mrugiero]

both are the same, and are dangerous. Just use GPL it's safer.

Which danger exists on using BSD? Being used in proprietary software doesn't count, as he stated enough times that he doesn't have a problem with that.

[brosis]

Here is a short list, of some of the Programs and Library's I am using.

Graphics Librarys

Anti-Grain Geometry
Anti-Grain Geometry is a 2D Vector Graphics Library
Home page: http://www.antigrain.com
License: BSD
Compat: Linux, BSD, Windows, Apple

http://www.antigrain.com/license/index.html

You also put up a list of libraries and toolkits, all these projects are not end-user software and they tend to use more "liberal" licensing if BS'ed into "interoperability", where in reality nothing prevents them to use LGPL 3+ thus preventing embrace, extend, extinquish and proprietary plugins. Also, do-what you want license is often deployed, if software is merely an interface or backend and not the product, this is the case of MESA, Wayland, Radeon and Intel drivers etc.

There are two kinds of people, those who understand the responsibility for ensuring freedom, and those who don't care.

Maxim understood that in 2.5.

[brosis]

Which danger exists on using BSD? Being used in proprietary software doesn't count, as he stated enough times that he doesn't have a problem with that.

Outside from obviously supporting proprietary model, BSD is also legally invalid license so Public Domain is better.

The GPL in my opinion is to restrictive.

This is FUD. GPL's only difference to Apache is that the former has copyleft, while the later is opensource. GPL imposes no restrictions outside of its copyleft goal.

[zester]

http://www.antigrain.com/license/index.html

You also put up a list of libraries and toolkits, all these projects are not end-user software and they tend to use more "liberal" licensing if BS'ed into "interoperability", where in reality nothing prevents them to use LGPL 3+ thus preventing embrace, extend, extinquish and proprietary plugins. Also, do-what you want license is often deployed, if software is merely an interface or backend and not the product, this is the case of MESA, Wayland, Radeon and Intel drivers etc.

There are two kinds of people, those who understand the responsibility for ensuring freedom, and those who don't care.

Maxim understood that in 2.5.

The 2.5 branch isn't maintained the community took the 2.4 branch and back-ported the 2.5 fixes, the 2.4 BSD branch is whats being maintained.

[zester]

Outside from obviously supporting proprietary model, BSD is also legally invalid license so Public Domain is better.
This is FUD. GPL's only difference to Apache is that the former has copyleft, while the later is opensource. GPL imposes no restrictions outside of its copyleft goal.

Beware: Never take legal advice from this person.

[mrugiero]

Outside from obviously supporting proprietary model, BSD is also legally invalid license so Public Domain is better.

How is it legally invalid?

[brosis]

Beware: Never take legal advice from this person.

You don't have to take legal advice from me - ask any lawyer. Take Apache and BSD licenses to him and ask if both are legally valid. You will be surprised.

[zester]

You don't have to take legal advice from me - ask any lawyer. Take Apache and BSD licenses to him and ask if both are legally valid. You will be surprised.

I have and they are.

Also grow up and protect your own freedom learn to program or do whatever instead of always relying on others to do the work for you. If you don't like closed source (Valve and there Games) then don't play them or make your own.

[mrugiero]

You don't have to take legal advice from me - ask any lawyer. Take Apache and BSD licenses to him and ask if both are legally valid. You will be surprised.

Why are them invalid?

[zester]

I just filed and issue for kdbus, asking if it will be optional. A couple of other people asked greg on G+ but he didn't respond.
Ill find out and let everyone know.