<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: BSD Licensed Code in Windows</title>
	<link>http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/</link>
	<description>Utterly random, incoherent and disjointed rants and ramblings...</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: YoureMissingSomething</title>
		<link>http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/#comment-2266</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/#comment-2266</guid>
					<description>According to the BSD license (which Microsoft agreed to when using the code):

 * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
 *	The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

That means Microsoft was required to leave the copyright intact.  Sure, I get the point about them being against the GPL but loving BSD, but they didn't just blatantly leave the copyright statement in because they're inept code stealers.  They were just obeying the license restrictions which is perfectly reasonable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the BSD license (which Microsoft agreed to when using the code):</p>
<p> * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993<br />
 *	The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.<br />
 *<br />
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without<br />
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions<br />
 * are met:<br />
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright<br />
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.</p>
<p>That means Microsoft was required to leave the copyright intact.  Sure, I get the point about them being against the GPL but loving BSD, but they didn&#8217;t just blatantly leave the copyright statement in because they&#8217;re inept code stealers.  They were just obeying the license restrictions which is perfectly reasonable.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kirk Badger</title>
		<link>http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/#comment-2241</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/#comment-2241</guid>
					<description>Does not surprise me in the least.
At least be thorough and have pride in your work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does not surprise me in the least.<br />
At least be thorough and have pride in your work.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.471 seconds -->
