[anon25783]

So you have a commercial product under a proprietary license, which forks a BSD-3-clause shell and an MIT-licensed terminal emulator? I don't think you can do that.

Edit: My apologies. I was mistaken. Carry on :)

[LarryClapp]

I don't follow. Both the BSD 3-clause license and the MIT license allow commercial use. Granted, I might need to double check that I credit them & reproduce their licenses appropriately.

[knewter]

Yeah it seems like this guy explicitly doesn't understand the licenses but will go tell people things they cannot do under the licenses anyway. Weird.

[jampekka]

anon25783 seems to be even using BSD for their own projects. Even weirder.

Maybe the constant GPL bashing going on is making people misunderstand the crucial difference between "permissive" and free software licenses?

[anon25783]

It must be, because I misunderstood that difference myself. I've edited my original comment to reflect this.

[LarryClapp]

Thanks!

[jampekka]

Very stand-up of you, kudos!

[jampekka]

Isn't this possibility to strip users of the freedoms in derived works exactly what is touted as the "permissiveness" of these licenses?

[ilc]

Indeed.

You just found the difference between Open Source (MIT/BSD and friends) and Free Software (GPL without copyright assignment.).

It ain't about money ;)