If you create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licenced software AND DISTRIBUTE IT, the derivative is not as free as the original. Users of the derivative are being deprived of freedoms that existed in the original. They dont have the ability to modify the original parts of the derivative once its binary only.
And be honest with yourself, if you create a closed source derivative of BSD licensed software would you be doing it mostly for the benefit of yourself or for others ?
Absolute freedom is a fantasy, absolute freedom permits people to take away other peoples freedom (to have power over them), once that happens freedom is no longer absolute.
The distributed binary is just as free as the original binary. And they DO have the EXACT SAME freedom I have - to develop their own derivative from the same source I used. Not my problem if they don't have the talent - they can always hire someone else to do it. What they don't have is the right to tell me what I have to do.
If I create a closed-source bsd-licensed derivative, OR my own completely original or derivative BSD-licensed code, that is MY choice. The people who have hired me to work on software, either as an employee or as a contractor, didn't give out the source code, and that is why they could afford to pay me. Same with almost everyone who works in the software biz. Open source is not a obligatory, nor is it desirable in many cases (like when you want to eat).
However, closed source does NOT limit other people's freedoms - they are, as I pointed out, free to use the same original source to make their own derivative. And they're free to release the source or not when they distribute binaries, as they wish, unlike the GPL.
There is nothing preventing users of the derivative to develop their own version using their own skills to create their own derivative from the same source I use, so users have the same freedoms I have. If they don't have the skills, sucks to be them but I don't owe it to them to give them my source. They have other options, such as paying someone else to develop their own derivative.
There's a HUGE difference between "these changes will be effective immediately" and "these changes will be effective retroactively."
I don't see anything being done retroactively. They are merely changing the code for displaying user names going forward. Without a time machine they cannot retroactively change the HTML generated in the past. But effective immediately, the database field user names will be pulled from for display purposed will change from User.Alias to User.FullName. Nothing retroactive about it, from a legal stance that it (although IANAL). From a moral stance, it is more murky.
Modern content management systems store comments, etc, in a database and dynamically change the page as the data changes. Example - change your sig, and then go look at your old posts - they will all have the new sig.
Ethics, schmethics! The lesson to learn is to never give out your real name, use prepaid cards and throw-away email, and if they snoop your IP, use a proxy.
Sure, but some of us would rather give them the opportunity to do something dickish and then hold their feet to the fire - otherwise, it will just continue and eventually become "best practices" and "industry standard"
"They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts."
Did you read the terms? I didn't -- never signed up for that site. I have ready many terms of sites I have signed up for and virtually all of those include some line where they can change the terms in the future. Not saying they had that -- but you are talking as if you read the terms and know exactly what it says and are full of righteous indignation.
If you haven't read the terms, then you are full of something other than righteous indignation. I leave exactly what that is up to the reader's imagination.
They themselves are admitting that the previous terms allowed anonymous posting, and that this change will be made retroactively unless you tell them by the day after Christmas to delete all your comments. Or did you not even read the summary???
If anything, they should make the default, if any, be to remove all anonymous comments unless you give them permission to show your real name. Even though even that is stupider than just enacting the new policy going forward, and leaving comments posted under the previous policy the way they were.
Place your vote on the person you would most like to win.
Place your bet on the person you think most likely to win.
Two completely different questions, from where I sit, and kind of hard to conflate the two. One is about your preference for the outcome, the other about your prediction of the outcome.
Turkey likes having it three different ways. They like getting half-price oil from ISIS (so they are financially supporting ISIS), they like everyone bombing everyone in Syria (making them relatively stronger), and they like being able to hide behind NATO for a stupid excuse for shooting down a Russian bomber and getting away with it (makes them look big-n-tough domestically).
Those million refugees in Turkey have paid a total of $1.5 billion euros to get into Turkey. And now they complain that they're stuck with them and wants the EU to take them off their hands? What a joke.
In other words, Turkey only cares about Turkey, and by using NATO intelligence to ambush a Russian bomber, they have shown that they cannot be trusted by anyone.
It's the same thing with Saudi Arabia. The only reason they produced so much cheap oil that they flooded the market was to put the higher-cost alternatives out of production, because if the world doesn't need Saudi oil, then the world will perhaps actually be willing to take a closer look at the Saudi's human rights violations and put an economic embargo in place. That this delays taking action on climate change is just tough sh*t for the current and next generations.
They try to cheat our systems with technicalities, therefore why is it a problem to divert them when they technically didn't hit land? If you really wanted better lives for those people, you'd have taken them in yourself rather than expecting us to do so.
I've already stated elsewhere that I'm prepared to take in a refugee when Canada brings them over here. If I were in Oz, I would have already done so.
I respect their efforts very much, but i would rather see them become more militant, take as much money as they can get from the wilfully ignorant, and not be afraid of making enemies.
That's certainly a good way to encourage development to move to BSD, which is already the basis for both the PlayStation and OS X.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to loose." - Confucious
Wrong. If I create a closed-source derivative of bsd-licensed software, I am NOT taking an freedom away from others. They are free to use it or not, same as people are free to not use GPL'd software if they don't want to abide by the terms of the GPL.
The BSD license allows code to propagate without putting restrictions on the person passing it on to others, unlike the GPL.
You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).