But you're wrong. Another cannot take your BSD-licensed work as their own. You will, always and forever, own that work and be able to use and freely distribute it.

Another can use your BSD-licensed work as the base for their work, and use and distribute their work as they see fit. This is as it should be. Even in doing so, however, they cannot stop you from continuing to use, maintain, and improve your own work.

Compare this freedom with the GPL's mandate to only distribute others' work on the same terms as your own. What gives you the right to tell someone else what they can do with their work? How is this freedom?

Fucking for virginity, indeed. You must destroy that freedom in order to save it.

Bah. Stallmanite double-speak.

All right, someone mod that one +1 Funny.

Ah, but that's the point: your analogy between the BSD license and the freedom to commit murder or arson is false. That's because the BSD license harms nobody, and grants freedom to programmers as well as users. The freedom to modify the code is meaningless if you are forced to give it away afterwards.

Not possible. They cannot prevent you from using your own work as you wish, under any circumstances, period, end of story. They can prevent you from using their work.

This kind of crap is the Stallmanite stork in trade: lay out a dystopian vision where programmers' work is taken away from them never to be seen again. If they'd quite peddling this lie, then things would be a lot calmer.

Uhm, no. If you need to restrict others' freedom, then ue the GPL - because that restricts freedoms int he name of preserving them. Just like the classic "fucking for virginity".

True freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss others off, or else it is not truly free. The difference between soi-disant "free software" and BSD-licensed code is that the latter includes the freedom to do things that piss RMS off.

Pay the licenses, or out-compete them with freely available code. There's considerable experience by now that says the latter will win every time.

No, I'm not posting just to start a flamewar. As for substantiation, the data have been untrustworthy ever since Climategate.

No. I am an atheist.

Was that before or after the historical data was fudged in ways the 'climate science" community won't disclose?

(And no, moderators, I'm not trolling. This is a legitimate question.)

"Troll" is Slashdot moderator-ese for "I don't agree with you and think no reasonable person could hold that opinion, so you must be trolling". It's far too overused; personally, I think it should be abolished entirely.

That part of the Voting Rights Act wasn't struck down.

Did they take into account the Voting Rights Act provision that requires that minority voters be concentrated into districts that they have a good likelihood of winning? That alone has the effect of diluting minority strength elsewhere.

The deal is very likely structured so the Senate won'/t be consulted. Just more of Barack Obama's contempt for the Constitution.

How's he gonna get out?

"That's not a knife. This is a knife."