groklaw is a joke. Best to ignore them. Were it not for idiots at SCO the idiots at groklaw would've remained the obscure fanbois they are.
Do you waste your time reading the effusions of fans of Britney Spears? How about Paris Hilton fans and their insightful blogs? Do you get your definition of the meaning of life from those bright lights who blog about the latest dating patterns of Justin Timberlake? I didn't think so. Just lump the RMS/Perens groupies into the same lot and move along. If you want to argue licensing there are lots of idiots on /. ready for your comments. To everyone else the BSD license says what it means, and means what it says. groklaw and the rest of the linux fanbois can f*** themselves. Or each other. -- Vim Visual <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yes, the article is somehow misleading... > > at this point I would like to ask another question > here, in misc; > namely... how do you feel/ what do you think of big > companies making > profit out of o'bsd or whatever bsd variant and not > giving anything > back for that? Think of, for instance, the MacOSX > case... > How would you feel like if o'bsd had another kind of > license, "for > instance" a GPLv3 one? > > just curious... > > Cheers, > > Pau > > 2007/1/16, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I think they might have drunk too much kangaroo > milk if you know what I > > mean. > > > > The license has been tested in court and has been > interpreted. > > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:21:52PM -0500, > Jean-Daniel Beaubien wrote: > > > Groklaw has an article about some misconceptions > of the BSD license > > > > > > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179 > > > > > > I am curious what people on this list (with the > proper knowledge) > > > think about the correctnessof the article. > > > > > > Jd
