BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

[LightBit]

What about WTFPL?

<a type="flamewar" value="off">
WTFPL doesn't do what you might think, because in most EU countries copyrights are not transferable. So removing copyright notice is not allowed.
Unlicense or CC0 are better, but still isn't public domain.
Releasing code to public domain everywhere is actually impossible.
</a>

[brosis]

CDDL is the best.

Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

[LightBit]

Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

To prevent code being GPLed.

[brosis]

To prevent code being GPLed.

No. Quick, correct yourself.
Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.

May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Permissive licenses include copyleft and public domain; and contrast to prohibitive licenses such as EULA.
Permissive licenses grant the user rights, while prohibitive licenses reserve, limit or take the rights away.
One of the conditions to make sure the user really gets the advertized rights is to prohibit taking rights away, which is single restricted right in GPL.
Anyone who bullshits GPL essentially bullshits right to protect freedom.

[LightBit]

No. Quick, correct yourself.
Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.

Still CDDL code never becomes GPLed.
ZFS on Linux will soon be dead.

[bridgman]

BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

[systemd rulez]

BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

Wrong, BSD licensed code can be re-licensed, and the copyright removed. It justs goes to show you how dumb BSD fuckers are. The thing is that what GPL people do it, they start crying, screaming like children (e.g. Theo de Raadt) while they just actively support proprietary companies when they take BSD code.

Might as well remove thier pants and bentover next to a sign saying "rape here for free"

[systemd rulez]

1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.

BSD fuckers always say that Linux is a copy of UNIX or that it's a plagerism of UNIX while thier OS is the real thing.

There's nothing further from the truth. Linux was written from scratch and it has code very different from unix but causes it to act like unix. BSD is a copy of unix, no innovation or whatsoever just blatent copying of code.

BSD deserved that lawsuit. I just wished it had completely distroyed BSD. Ban them completely from touching the code.

[Vim_User]

Permissive licenses include copyleft and public domain; and contrast to prohibitive licenses such as EULA.

So why is the GNU website only calling the non-copyleft open source licenses permissive licenses, but not the copyleft licenses? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Why does the GNU website differentiate between copyleft and permissive non-copyleft free software licenses, if all free software licenses are permissive?

In the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive non-copyleft free software licenses.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

Why can't we find one place on the whole site that the GPL is a permissive license?

Why does the Copyfree organization states that the Wikipedia definition is the

closest thing to a clear definition of the term "permissive license"

http://copyfree.org/permissive/

[bridgman]

Wrong, BSD licensed code can be re-licensed, and the copyright removed. It justs goes to show you how dumb BSD fuckers are.

Why do you think that ? All of the BSD license variants start with the following :

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
...