Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

[Paradox Uncreated]

BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?

[smitty3268]

BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?

I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.

Anyway, yes. I would not license any project I was working on as BSD, but I would consider it an open source license if someone else used it.

[Paradox Uncreated]

Imagine this ok, you have a company, with professional salesmen, who hire people to organize BSD code from around the world. Genious kids from around the world all contribute, they make a product, and sell it. They don`t even tell the kids what code they use, and they will even have to pay for the product.

[Paradox Uncreated]

Thats even illegal in most places. So the satan-mascot of BSD is very suitable.

I don`t know why these people think they need to stay loyal to a corporate entity?

[smitty3268]

Imagine this ok, you have a company, with professional salesmen, who hire people to organize BSD code from around the world. Genious kids from around the world all contribute, they make a product, and sell it. They don`t even tell the kids what code they use, and they will even have to pay for the product.

You are missing the point.

The BSD code is open source.

Once the company takes it then it becomes proprietary.

The fact that the code was re-licensed has no bearing on the original license.

Anyway, I don't have time to argue about this, so I'll pre-emptively state that you've won this internet argument. Congratulations!

[Paradox Uncreated]

D00d you are missing the point. The code is no longer opensource. Did you even read anything I wrote?

[WorBlux]

This is not newsworthy.
The idiot who wrote it knows as little about IP law as he knows about grammar and spelling.
Who wrote this, some 10-year-old kid?
I wouldn't expect it to stand up in court.

If you want a good license, check out the ISC license, it is similar to the 2-clause BSD and MIT license, but even shorter due to things being striped out that were made redundant by the Berne convention.

I agree the ISC looks unambiguous and uses legally meaningful terms.

[WorBlux]

What should be so difficult to understand about open vs closed source? What country is this?

There is no legal definition of these terms, nor is there any scientific or expert consensus. There is an array of popular definitions, none of which really have the better claim. The author should really work what his ideas mean in terms of the current legal structure of copyright as the substantial body or the text.

[XorEaxEax]

I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.

Suspicion? I'd say it was obvious flame-bait.

As for licences, anyone can create a licence and as such there are tons of software licences out there. However unless someone actually use them to licence their code these licences won't make a lick of difference. The open source world we live in has pretty much settled on GPL/LGPL and BSD/MIT.

[wizard69]

Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source. This is probably why there is a proliferation of open source licenses as it is. Which brings up the question of why bother with another license if so many are already available.