Re: GPL misappropriation

[RJack]

David Kastrup wrote:
> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > RJack <user@example.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > I have been poking around in the source code for BusyBox,
> > > > v.0.60.3. and unsurprisingly most every thing in the those
> > > > command line utilities are substantially similar to the old
> > > > BSD4.4-lite tree. Not only are the defendants Best But et. al.
> > > > not guilty of infringing Erik Andersen's source code but
> > > > BusyBox has appropriated code from the BSD tree and tried to
> > > > put it illegally under the GPL.
> >
> > > You should try rereading that BSD license.  "Appropriating" and 
> > > releasing under the GPL is perfectly covered by the BSD license
> > > as long as the original copyright attributions remain intact.
> > That will never happen. Copyrights are exclusive rights and cannot
> > be licensed by anyone except the *owner* of a copyright.
>
> And the copyright owner licensed them under the BSD license which 
> permits incorporation into works licensed differently.
>
> > Releasing BSD licensed code under the GPL is simply attempting to 
> > steal it.
>
> Read the BSD license, joker.

No matter what you say or how many time you say it, BSD licensed code
remains under the BSD license and not the GPL license.

> And/or get a clue.  IIRC, even some Windows bootup screen mentions 
> "contains code (C) BSD" and so on.  And Windows is not exactly 
> BSD-licensed.
>
> The whole point of the BSD license is that you can incorporate the
> code into differently licensed stuff.  As opposed to copyleft.

Incorporate away DAK -- all you want -- still, BSD licensed code remains
under the BSD license and not the GPL license.

Sincerely,
RJack :)