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.
As I understand it, BSD is almost public domain.
Its not. You retain full authorship, so deleting the license and pasting a new one directly violates the license.
I can take BSD code, and relicense it any way I please
No. You cannot remove the BSD disclaimer from the source and/or claim it as your own.
If you want kernel improvements to be implemented back, why license your code under the BSD to begin with?
One of the reasons TCP/IP is a huge success is because it was BSD licensed. As many fundamental daemons that gave name to some pretty well-known services that we now call "internet" collectively.
When you release your code BSD, you allow relicensing. That's why MS prefers the BSD license.
Also Apple. And every other sane company that doesn't do business selling "open source", but products with added value. If you really look into it, very few relevant OSS projects use GPL, aside from Linux infrastructure and the whole FSF ecosystem.
If BSD advocates want to thump their chests about their licence being so free, then why do they bitch when Linux - but not Microsoft - takes them up on their offer?
No one bitched about "taking the offer". "Taking the offer" means respecting the license - hey, even Microsoft does it, right? AFAIK (your link isn't opening) the bitching was about ignoring the licensing terms.
I'm an OpenBSD user since 2.9. I stopped using it in most professional setups around 4.2-4.4, because I find the maintenance cycle unnaceptable. However, I still buy both CDs and assorted merch from the project when I can, because I see real value in the team. But the truth is, while some of the side projects are quite alive (OpenSSH, PF stuff, OpenBGPD, etc), OpenBSD itself hasn't aged quite well. The VFS layer is a mess. Thread support is subpar. No container support whatsoever. No ACL support, no MAC. No virtualization support. Crappy SMP support. And this is so obvious, that some ex-developers decided to fork it and create https://www.bitrig.org./ And lets face it, it seems like local attacks aren't even considered vulnerabilities. The whole remote exploit stuff is such a bullshit - I remember one release that was antecipated 1-2 weeks so some Apache hole would not count. And while no one really cares about OpenBSD anymore, their subprojects are beneficial to almost every other operating system - if it wasn't for them (specially OpenSSH), I think OpenBSD would be long gone.
The specific legislation to which Alexander referred was unclear. Angela Canterbury, the policy director for the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said she was unaware of any such bill. Neither was Steve Aftergood, an intelligence policy analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.
The laws were passed and signed into law by the secret FISA Congress and the secret FISA POTUS, naturally!
I'm sure the secret FISA SCOTUS has already reviewed these laws and found them reasonable & necessary.
The Secret FISA VISA.
It's everywhere you want to spy!!
I wonder how long it will take for attacks on the NSA's and their contractors' workers by the public to start?
So, how long until Iron Man, now?
Not long at all. At least, for something a bit less "sci-fi" (umm, "palm thrusters"?) but more practical for the real-world foot-soldier.
But soon there will be very little need for large numbers of (human) infantry.
Atlas rocky terrain and balance tests. http://youtu.be/S-WRjDsyL0s
Robot soldiers that won't question, lie, or disobey orders.
Every megalomaniacs' and oppressive police states' wet-dream.
What could possibly go wrong?
The only thing worse than a self-aware "Skynet" is a "Skynet" under human control. Machines don't enjoy needless cruelty and the deliberate infliction of pain & suffering for their own sakes.
I'm sure whoever accidentally requisitioned hundreds of bipedal forklifts instead of ordinary forklifts got the last laugh that day.
"Nobody ever got fired for buying bipedal forklifts"?
Doesn't have the same ring.
[Obvious use]...Great for spying on people's phone communications
Or, alternately, enabling people to set up their own local networks (throw in a dash of encryption, maybe?) when a government shuts down the carriers to aid in suppressing mass political/popular opposition, protests, marches, demonstrations, etc.
It could ultimately be tracked down by the government, but even with no attempts to transmission-wise obscure the source/location (well, lets be real...it would necessarily be on a low-power transmitter, so there's that) it's damned hard, particularly in a dense urban area, to locate a signal from the ground.
There's also the practical matter of logistics for the authorities. There aren't a whole lot of radio tracking & location vans around. The FCC has typically only had one or two in most of the States in the US, with exceptions for the larger States like California where the vast area of the State demands a larger fleet, but still relatively very few for covering a huge area. Michigan for instance had two (one was almost always parked and served as a backup vehicle against mechanical failures/repair) the last I'd heard.
Helicopters would be faster, but there aren't that many so equipped either, even in the military. The military signal tracking capabilities are more focused on weapons systems and target tracking, not domestic small-transmitter rabbit-hunting that doesn't involve something akin to a HARM missile taking out a half-block area. That might go largely unnoticed and be considered by many to be an improvement in large sections of Detroit, but elsewhere it would definitely cause mass anti-government public demonstrations, protests, uprisings, death, and violence.
And, I think we can *all* agree, here...
"Ain't nobody got time for that!"
I really doubt it is actually meant to blow itself up though.
If they used the right kind of battery it could
All you'd need to do is build it on a flammable PCB with a nichrome-wire-style electrical ignition element embedded within it, and discharge the (I would assume normally inaccessible without tripping the destruct) battery through it. The destruct could even have it's own built-in and seperate battery
*Poof*, original "Mission Impossible"-style.
"Good morning, Mr. Phelps..."
Sometimes the old tech is the best tech.
What was it you called a country where the government and powerful, "connected" private business interests merge?
Ohhh, silly me! *Now* I remember!
A Fascist Oligarchy, of course!
Welcome to the DRNA comrades! (Democratic Republic of North America) The new flag will be a black silhouette of a boot stomping a human face on a blood-red background.
Just wait until they run out of money they can rape from the domestic economy and begin a policy of international aggression to keep their hookers and blow flowing. The world is going to burn.