jboy55

35 ms·

1. 451.▲
   by jboy55 12y ago

   This is the case in point. You can't BSD license GPLed code without permission of the original copyright holder.
2. 452.▲
   by jboy55 12y ago

   People are having trouble groking that not good for Google doesn't mean not good for Open Source. Strong Copyright is the backbone of the GPL, without it, the GPL's perpetual open concept is meaningless.
3. 453.▲
   by jboy55 12y ago

   Its really good for open source. The more that is protected by copyright, the stronger the GPL and the BSD license are.
4. 454.▲
   by jboy55 12y ago

   The API headers are copyrighted, and any program that uses them is a derivative work. However, the license you accept in using the copyrighted work allows you to do so, with some conditions. Google chose to ignore those conditions. API he
5. 455.▲
   by jboy55 12y ago

   If someone made a BSD clone of your GPL software, then a bunch of companies took that BSD clone and built products off of it, keeping their modifications private. You'd bet the GNU people would help you sue.
6. 456.▲
   by jboy55 12y ago

   I was trying to think of what in software is the equivilent as a 'rivet'. Something small, with a near singular purpose, one who's design has changed relatively little in decades. The only thing I could argue we have in softw