BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

[Sergio]

BSD fuckers always say that Linux is a copy of UNIX or that it's a plagerism of UNIX while thier OS is the real thing.

There's nothing further from the truth. Linux was written from scratch and it has code very different from unix but causes it to act like unix. BSD is a copy of unix, no innovation or whatsoever just blatent copying of code.

BSD deserved that lawsuit. I just wished it had completely distroyed BSD. Ban them completely from touching the code.

So TCP/IP, sockets, works in file systems (FFS), works in virtual memory, ARPANET were not innovations? I mean, kill yourself... or else get the facts once and forall: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html

[systemd rulez]

or else get the facts once and forall: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html

I read this a long time ago, I find it rather one-sided and inaccurate.

[systemd rulez]

BTW, nowadays GPL and Linux is far more academic then BSD. When CS and software degree students go to classes on UNIX, they are taught using a distro of Linux instead. Also, a lot of research into inventing new security features and ways of computing are done using linux not bsd. University supercomputers use to do calculations use linux not bsd.

I met a recent graduate from a BSc. He did astronomy and I tolded me that for processing of astronomical images and data and astrophysical simulation, they use fedora and centos. He also said that when researchers release code for thier situations, they release it under the GPL not BSD.

You see, the GPL is far more academic then BSD. In fact today, Linux is leading the way in research of all fields while BSD is holding back technology and their are bigoted what it comes to anything new.

[brosis]

BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

You can.

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

One takes BSD licensed software and strips this notice out, as a "modification".
A lot of proprietary software uses BSD code without BSD notice, instead having classic "$Name $Revision\n $Corporation (c) $Year. All rights reserved" header.
If source is released, only notice that is kept is

Portions, copyright regents of Berkley.

As simple as that.
The copy-paste is in place, there are no limits soever, except this one-liner. If they want, they can modify the portions slightly and remove the one-liner.

So why is the GNU website only calling the non-copyleft open source licenses permissive licenses, but not the copyleft licenses? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Where specifically?

Why does the GNU website differentiate between copyleft and permissive non-copyleft free software licenses, if all free software licenses are permissive?http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

Because there are four categories of permissive licenses, sorted from most restricting to least restricting that is: permissive copyleft, permissive non-copyleft, all-permissive license and public domain.
Anything past permissive copyleft allows removing permissions, as such they are anarchic licenses (permission level: anarchy). Everything in public domain strips authorship as well.

Why can't we find one place on the whole site that the GPL is a permissive license?

Because you did not search. All GPL licenses are permissive licenses.
LGPL are one of the most permissive, since they allow everything except closing original source down.
The most permissive GPL is "All-permissive GPL license". It is more permissive than BSD.

Why does the Copyfree organization states that the Wikipedia definition is the http://copyfree.org/permissive/

I do not consider "copyfree" to be anything else than a collection of BSD trolls. The only "copyfree" is public domain.

[FLHerne]

You can.

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

One takes BSD licensed software and strips this notice out, as a "modification".

Having gone to all that bother to quote the license, you could probably afford ten seconds to read it:?

Those words saying "...provided that the following conditions are met...retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer" specifically prohibit 'stripping the notice out as a modification'.

[brosis]

Having gone to all that bother to quote the license, you could probably afford ten seconds to read it:?

Those words saying "...provided that the following conditions are met...retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer" specifically prohibit 'stripping the notice out as a modification'.

Where do they prohibit it?
One can do anything, provided this notice is present.
1) take unmodified code, insert it with notice
2) notice is present, condition to modification is met
3) modification is: strip the license
3) without license, there is no conditions now

[Vim_User]

You can.

One takes BSD licensed software and strips this notice out, as a "modification".
A lot of proprietary software uses BSD code without BSD notice, instead having classic "$Name $Revision\n $Corporation (c) $Year. All rights reserved" header.
If source is released, only notice that is kept is

As simple as that.
The copy-paste is in place, there are no limits soever, except this one-liner. If they want, they can modify the portions slightly and remove the one-liner.

Except that stripping out the parts you mentioned is not allowed by the license. One could think you never read it fully.

Where specifically?

You didn't even bother to read that page, did you?
Every GPL license on that page, except the GNU All-Permissive License, which is not a copyleft license, lacks the word permissive, while every permissive license (permissive in the sense how everyone except you use the word in that context) is described as permissive.

Because there are four categories of permissive licenses, sorted from most restricting to least restricting that is: permissive copyleft, permissive non-copyleft, all-permissive license and public domain.

Just your definition or do you have a source for that?

Because you did not search. All GPL licenses are permissive licenses.

Actually, yes I did, but the site has not one page that describes the copyleft licenses as permissive. If you find one provide a link.

[LightBit]

BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

Yes, but than it is GPL + BSD.

[LightBit]

You can.

Yes, but than you are violating BSD license.
You are allowed to sublicense it (add compatible license).

[LightBit]

Where do they prohibit it?
One can do anything, provided this notice is present.
1) take unmodified code, insert it with notice
2) notice is present, condition to modification is met
3) modification is: strip the license
3) without license, there is no conditions now

I'm pretty sure lawyers would not agree with you.

must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer"

It is "this", not "modified" list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

If you want to make sure there is no confusion, use something like this:

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer [b]unmodified[/b].
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer [b]unmodified[/b] in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

It will be compatible with other licenses.
If you modify GPL it won't be compatible with original GPL.