BSD license

[Jason Hellenthal]

Set a meeting place, make sure there are lots of flags on the walls (I
prefer red, white & blue) and also make sure that during all the ranting
and chanting going on that you unveil the newest, leetist golden
bikeshed.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/01/save-ants.html

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 05:40:24AM -0000, toredhiddenuser at tormail.net wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> There are many people who use GPL for their projects unaware of the terms
> of license. We can observe that most "new technologies" and protocols are
> licensed under BSD-license.
> As you are already subscribed to the mailing list, you probably have much
> education of licenses and may be aware of dreadful deeds of GNU * License.
> 
> The main problem is "Viral" copyleft nature. Anything that even LINKS to
> the GPL'd files SHOULD BE under GPL, as you may probably know.
> LGPL is viral too. MPL, on the other hand, didn't catch much attention,
> but if you imply the protection of source code by means of copyleft, hope
> it's the best way around: Less restrictions, but provides copyleft nature.
> 
> Apparently, new developers who are unaware of copyrights, release their
> source into GPL.
> The new developer communities have an inclined trend towards GPL like:
> "The projects we see are GPL'd. Why don't we use that license?"
> Some companies, (probably the worst) use the GPL to force an "addiction"
> and to force a need of dual-licensing. ****** and *** ************
> (removed because of problem) use this license for such purpose. Doesn't it
> seem like some sort of Blackmail?
> 
> BSD people should start a project to request some near-mature projects to
> beta-projects to be licensed under BSD/MIT style license, or, at least MPL
> (better than GPL, anyhow).
> (Is the name BSDActivists and BSDActivism) nice?
> 
> There have been many proposals by some people, you can observe:
> These proposals were collected (probably) anonymously, for privacy of the
> doers. These attracted attention. Summary:
> 
> 
> Audacity: Dominic Mazoni (lead developer), Re-licensing request failed
> (needs $);
>           Matt Brubeck: failed (but affirmative, says he have released
> other code under MIT license, but doesn't apparently have right
> to do relicensing.)
> 
> Removing OpenAL from SFML: Failed, they say there is no "better one"
> 
> PAQ compression, Matt Mahoney: New compression method, ZPAQ is Public Domain.
> 
> CppCMS: needs $ to do so
> 
> Wikipedia: FAILED, for a reasonable reason
> 
> EFF HTTPS Everywhere / Vidalia / TorButton : IN PROGRESS
> 
> Request for Kaos.To to remove Privoxy and to include Polipo: NO RESPONSE YET
> 
> 
> BSD developers should start an activism to promote the BSD license and to
> make re-licensing request to developers. All BSD promoters should take
> notice on this. Don't be afraid if this is posted on multiple BSD mailing
> lists, like OpenBSD's or NetBSD's, because, it's probably the time to
> unite all the BSD people.
> Is anyone interested?
> Thank you for your patient reading.
> 
> Sorry for the last e-mail which was somewhat so-rant-like: Thanks to Eitan
> Adler for pointing out.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-advocacy at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

-- 
;s =;