> Oh, please, stop this disinformation once and for all.
How about you stop with your bullshit?
This is NOT about re-licensing. I never said that the BSD-licensed code was somehow magically re-licensed, so you can stop pretending that I did.
However, anyone who distributes BSD-licensed binaries (whether modified or not) is under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to provide source code to anyone, ever. Not of their modified source and not even of the original unmodified source.
They're free to tell their users "fuck off and go find the source yourself. And good luck figuring out how to compile it, sucker!".
> Both BSD and GPL licenses have their uses, but don't tell GPL gives
> more freedom, because it is not true
It absolutely IS true. The GPL provides (and enforces) freedom for everyone, developers AND users. It also prevents anyone from restricting that freedom, AND it obliges re-distributors to provide the source code in the preferred (i.e. most usable) machine-readable form.
The BSD license does not in any way prevent anyone from restricting freedom, and creates no obligation to provide source code.
> they are still able to download the original source code with both
> licenses, even if the derivative work has been distributed with a
> restrictive license
This is disingenuous, at best.
Users aren't guaranteed a right to the source code of the software that they're actually running, that they have purchased as a software product or that is embedded in some hardware device they bought. With some fucking about and searching, they can probably get most or all of the source for the original code that the product they're using was based on, and that's all.
Now that may be exactly what the original code developers want, and it's absolutely their right to choose whatever license they want for their code. That still doesn't mean that the BSD license is as free as the GPL. It's not. It's inherently less free.