Not necessarily, several companies that utilize BSD like licenses have contributed back to the projects.Yeah, exactly, they prefer BSD to GPL for only reason - the difference in licensing. Cristal clear as water - they want to take and close it down. And they donīt want anyone looking inside their code, for whatever legal reasons.
You better believe Americans do protect their constitution as do Canadians with their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and defending those rights and freedoms usually have publicly funded departments to help defend those rights even if you cannot afford it personally.Two single points where I agree with you. But do americans protect their constitution? Or russians? Most of times, no Any legal act requires enforcement, nothing special.
The original free code is still free. If someone changes or adds onto it then that is their code to do with as they feel fit. If that means giving back in a public manner all the better but it should not be a requirement. It's the freedom of choice.I have no problem with the code using this license, I have problem when the amount of code using this license expands to the scale of whole kernel.
Using educational centers as pets to empower their local research subdivision. Giving only portions of code back and separating it (by amount of effort and time needed to learn, by design, by market share, by patents) so that students actually learn and advance proprietary parts instead of collaborating with commercial sector on completely open basis.
I haven't worked for Apple for a few years now (going on three). In fact my current employer develops GPL software.Slave 2nd class sheep feeding aristocratic wolves. Deanjo, youīre using and working for Apple.
Yes Apple used BSD licensed code as the license clearly allows. The original authors of that code still offer that code to anyone.Why not *BSD? Cause *BSD is not good for desktop. And it cannot be done better for desktop, cause Apple doesnīt give much away, following their (BSD) license. Yet Apple took whole whoop of technology from them, for free. Professors carrying out development of their own system, on their own; sometimes getting pieces from the table and dreaming to work elsewhere. Awesome Sounds a lot like ReactOS, but in unix way
I wasn't even thinking of CUPS but that would be one example. Just look at your system and think, what is there that is BSD, PD, MIT licensed? Lets just look at SQLite for example which is a huge dependency for many open source projects. You probably have a dozen appliances alone that use it so don't try to pass the impression that those licenses only benefit the commercial guys. It benefits everybody. from coders to end users to developers.You claimed I benefited from it in linux, you surely mean CUPS etc. But, donīt you claimed some months ago that CUPS sucks in linux? Cause, yes it prints, but it is hardly usable: the network functionality is not a problem - the problem is drivers, and CUPS or its license does not change anything. Kodak for example, does MacOSX drivers, but completely ignores linux. Iīm proud to use HP <3, but yes I use alternative ink.