EU study recommends OpenBSD

Re:EU study recommends OpenBSD by s_dev on Monday April 27, 2015 @10:08AM (#9446367)

The point I think Theo is trying to make is in the open source world you simply have to expect that people will take code - put it under a different licence and modify it - restricting their ability to take back the modified code into OpenBSD.

Typically OSS licences allow and tolerate "selfish" behaviour. I don't think I or he needs to back up this claim with examples.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU study recommends OpenBSD by gillianseed on Monday April 27, 2015 @10:28AM (#9446485)

>that people will take code - put it under a different licence and modify it

Ok, although the 'take code and put it under a different license' is untrue, you can't re-license code unless you are the copyright owner, I gather that he means someone making modifications/enhancements and placing them under a license which OpenBSD can't use while remaining fully BSD licensed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU study recommends OpenBSD by pakled_engineer on Monday April 27, 2015 @12:41PM (#9447420)

This happened when Apple adopted pf they added a few enhancements of their own but wrapped them in Apple's license so pf maintainers could not add the changes back into upstream pf.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:EU study recommends OpenBSD by yellowapple on Monday April 27, 2015 @01:36PM (#9447853)

This also happened with Linux's Atheros drivers (which were derived from OpenBSD, but modifications were published under the GPL instead of the BSD or ISC licenses; Theo argued that doing so was actually a violation of the BSD license (apparently they were stripping out the BSD license in the actual source files? I'm fuzzy on the details)). I don't remember what the outcome was.

[ Parent | on HN ]