ZDNet: Fatal flaw in BSD? - The Kerberos Affair shows weakness of BSD software license.

"Certainly one could take Microsoft to task for the ethics of taking an open standard and turning it proprietary. But why it was done, to me, is neither as interesting nor as genuine a source of concern as how it was done or how it can be prevented in the future."

"You see, the Kerberos code that Microsoft "enhanced" is distributed under a BSD-style license similar to the one used by XFree86. This is the kind of license that generally allows anyone who legally obtains the source code to make modifications without requiring such modifications themselves to be open. Indeed, the copyright file that comes in the current Kerberos code explicitly says:"

"In contrast, the GNU Public License, under which Linux and most of its tools are distributed, requires that all modifications must be as open as the original code."

Complete Story

Related Stories:

• Seattle Times: Linux resistance battles Microsoft over copyrights(May 21, 2000)
• The Standard: Kerberos Loophole May Close Around Microsoft's Neck(May 21, 2000)
• Inter@ctive Week: Kerberos In The Legal Limelight(May 20, 2000)
• LinuxPlanet: Rant Mode Equals One: M$ Losing Ugly on Kerberos(May 19, 2000)
• Slashdot: Our [slashdot's] Attorney's Response To Microsoft(May 19, 2000)
• Slashdot: On Microsoft, Kerberos, Slashdot, and Trade Secrets(May 16, 2000)
• Linux.com: Crazed Ferrets in a Berkeley Shower(Feb 10, 2000)
• osOpinion: Why BSD is more free than GPL is(Dec 29, 1999)
• 32 Bits Online: GPL and BSD: explication and comparison(Jun 19, 1999)
• Daemon News: Restrictively Unrestrictive: The GPL License in Software Development(May 02, 1999)
• InfoWorld: Fetch your flamethrowers: It's time to argue the finer points of software licenses(Dec 07, 1998)