Theo de Raadt: why the bitching about BSD code put in GPL?
And that's not the only article I've seen about BSD advocates bitching about BSD code being put into GPL code.
I don't get it. BSD advocates are fine with MS taking BSD code, and claiming it as MS code, and releasing only in binary. But, the BSD advocates bitch about BSD code being put into GPL open-source? WTF?
As I understand it, BSD is almost public domain. I can take BSD code, and relicense it any way I please. If I don't want my code relicensed, then I shouldn't release it BSD.
When you release your code BSD, you allow relicensing. That's why MS prefers the BSD license.
I just don't get it. If you want kernel improvements to be implemented back, why license your code under the BSD to begin with?
I took a look at the BSD license, and I don't see anything prohibiting anybody from taking BSD code and putting into a GPL project.
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?
It does not seem to make sense to me.