Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> BSD - The Dark Horse of Open Source, by Brendan Scott, OS Law
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Brendan Scott has been studying the BSD license, particularly
> | in the context of Australian law, and he has come up with some
> | startling questions. Is the BSD license as permissive as we've
> | thought?
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179
>
> Ignoble Attack On The BSD License!
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I do believe that Brendan Scott, the lawyer who owns
> | OpenSourceLaw.biz is not only "an open source advocate"
> | ... Brendan Scott, who is paying you to denigrate BSD?
> `----
>
> http://beranger.org/index.php?article=2264&from=rss
Don't know about ignoble, but it's certainly long winded.
The 6171 words of his analysis of the BSD licence can be summarised in
three words: "it's too short".
Pretty much what I've been saying for years.
The lack of detail in the BSD licence only leads to ambiguity, and a
subsequent potential for abusive exploitation. Then again, if BSD folk
were at all concerned with abusive exploitation, they wouldn't have
produced such a permissive (yet ambiguous) license to begin with. Free
software is only truly Free if it is protected in such a way as to
*keep* it Free; something that BSD folk don't seem at all concerned
with.
Or IOW ... it's too short.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
.----
| "We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support
| any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the
| success of liberty." - John F. Kennedy
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.18-1.2849.fc6
14:59:00 up 58 days, 7:20, 3 users, load average: 1.78, 1.35, 0.70
|
|
