I am sorry, but I don't understand: why is it okay for Microsoft to use to BSD code, without giving BSD any credit, but not Linux?
Where did you get that idea? Microsoft used the BSD-based TCP stack on previous versions of windows, and the disclaimers are fairly well documented, even on the header files. The BSD clause is let intact, as required. The Microsoft Services For Unix was (AFAIK) based on OpenBSD tools and some GPL stuff, all also in compliance with the license (an old version is described in http://technet.microsoft.com/e...)
y understanding is: the ISC, MIT and BSD-licenses allow for sublicensing without making any modifications so the Linux devs are perfectly within the license when they sublicense the original code under the GPL
You CANNOT rip the BSD disclaimer. Its right there on the license. Theo is right.
And tecnically, you CANNOT dual-license a BSD file with GPL without any change. If you do it, the less restrictive license takes precedence. You can change the file and have your own modifications under GPL if you want, but for the rest of the code, the GPL clauses are void because BSD is less restrictive and the content is ALSO licensed under BSD.
Also, I am not sure that Theo is justified in ranting about "the Linux people" when this was one incident that happened about 15 years ago, and was corrected.
Another guy already replied to this. If a guy chooses GPL because he thinks its a better license, he should at least have the same respect for other licenses. More often than not, this doesn't happen. The fallacy of repeating RMS GPL bullshit as facts doesn't make them come to reality, and it hurts the OSS ecosystem as a whole.