DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
Re: SCO after BSD settlement
Matthew Dillon wrote:
If Microsft cannot include 3 lines of text in order to satisfy a very
generous license, then they deserve to be sued. MS is not using the code
as it was meant to be used as long as they are not abiding by the
license. To claim otherwise would be ridiculous. BSD is not synonymous
with public domain after all. The point of a license is to impose
restrictions, no matter how easy to fulfil. If you want _complete_
freedom, make it public domain.
:I'm confused. Clause #3 (advertising) was rescinded, yes, but isn't
:Gary referring to clause #2 (original copyright message included with
:docs/materials, for binaries), which is still very much in the license?
This was brought up long ago. I am fairly sure that some people ran
'strings' on MS windows offerings and found Berkeley copyright messages
embedded in the binaries, and I believe someone found copyright
messages in certain pieces of documentation as well.
But even if MS did not follow the requirement to the letter there is
no point suing them... what kind of damages could UC extract from them
for using free software freely? Nothing, really. MS is basically using
the code the way we meant it to be used, and it would be silly to take
them to task for it.
Not on principle apparently.
The SCO situation is very different.