Shano - Slashdot User

Comment Re:BSD (Score 1) 456

by Shano on Sunday September 02, 2007 @09:21AM (#20440435) Attached to: GPL Hindering Two-Way Code Sharing?

No, they wouldn't. You can distribute the code (almost) under the terms of the GPL because (almost) everything that GPL permits, BSD also permits. However, BSD does not allow the copyright to be removed. Strictly, you must distribute under the terms of the GPL as well as the requirement the the copyright notice remains. If you distribute purely under the GPL then you are strictly violating the BSD license, but it's so similar to the combined license that most people don't split hairs about it.

As far as I can tell, the whole fuss is due to a confusion over whether the code was covered by both licenses simultaneously (in which case it's almost but not quite identical to the GPL, because the BSD part has to remain intact), or the recipient's choice (in which case it's pretty much BSD, and either license can be removed at will).

Feed Techdirt: Group Behind 'To Catch A Predator' Claims Wikipedia Is A Corporate Sex Offender (techdirt.com)

From feed by techdirtfeed on Friday August 24, 2007 @06:12AM

We've seen all sorts of criticisms of Wikipedia over the years, but this might be a first. Apparently the group "Perverted Justice," the controversial online vigilante group that tries to lure online pedophiles out into the open (and is the group that is used by NBC Dateline's equally controversial "To Catch A Predator" show) is now claiming that Wikipedia is "a corporate sex offender." Apparently, if you follow the links from Wikipedia to Perverted Justice's site, it has a screed against Wikipedia -- claiming "each article on Wikipedia that deals with any issue relating to pedophiles or internet predators has been heavily targeted and edited by the online pedophile activist movement." Of course, there's a bit more to the story. Apparently, Perverted Justice's founder was recently barred from editing Wikipedia after people felt that he was flaming other users, deleting any negative reference to his organization, accusing others of being pedophiles without substantiation and when asked about it, replying "with invective." This suggests the anger at Wikipedia is a bit more about the guy being barred than any sort of official Wikipedia issue. If anything, it seems like yet another case where Wikipedia's neutral point of view has resulted in confusion. There's no doubt that Perverted Justice's reason for being is good -- but calling Wikipedia a sex offender seems quite extreme and unreasonable.

Slashdot Top Deals