Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a business can take your code, make a product, and release that product with whatever (sub)license they want. This happens all of the time, and is the major "boon" of the BSD.
Actually I cannot find this anywhere in the license. But I'll believe you ;)
This also means that BSD code could (theoretically) become extinct in the "free" word; e.g., if all versions of the code could be snapped up by proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors disappeared. This is one of the reasons people choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that the source stays open and (additionally) that changes get fed back to the community if the binaries are distributed.
That's exactly why I carefully choose my license beforehand. Some of my codes are GPL (currently 2 projects). These are things where the efforts should not be used "commercially" (usually the GPL keeps away companies in the Wintel-world) by others.
Here is the text of the BSD license:
I know it. But which part tells me someone can sublicense it? You know the problem here is the following: - No, I have no problem with projects using GPL to use my BSDLed code - Yes, I have a problem if my BSDLed code is published by them under the terms of the GPL. Because this means they can restrict the rights I have granted to the licensees. I think this is not possible like this!
If I understand the cited paragraphs of the GPL correctly it means that the code parts can be used but do not become GPLed. That's my view from reading it.
So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed by pretty much everybody, and it can also be "converted" to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible').
"GPL-compatible" is okay with me (that's OpenSource ;) ... "GPLed" - i.e. restricted by GPL - is not.
I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone on this one.
(-: We Germans kill two flies instead of birds :-P
Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that we could implicitly terminate any of these licenses even on suspicion (i.e., guilty until proven innocent), and that just doesn't make sense.
That's an interesting view.
Von: Royce Mitchell III Sounds to me the most prudent course of action would be a new version of the GPL license which clarifies this particular bit of confusion.
This is being worked on currently (AFAIK). They want to make it much simpler so non-native speakers can understand it without a PhD from a law school ;)
Cheers,
Oliver