From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,25457a5aee9eaa04
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr8692738pbc.5.1338276683272;
        Tue, 29 May 2012 00:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 pr3ni61459pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!usenet.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!news.alt.net!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news
From: Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Fuzzy machine learning framework v1.2
References: <op.we1r4qw1ule2fv@douda-yannick>
Message-ID: <280411e312fcf03741189158e0c986b4@dizum.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:31:03 +0200 (CEST)
Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
Organization: mail2news@dizum.com
Date: 2012-05-29T09:31:03+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57
 )
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Le Mon, 28 May 2012 20:34:47 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> a  
> écrit:
> > The MIT license doesn't seem to have any restrictions at all. The BSD
> > license seems to say "don't say you wrote this" but otherwise you can do
> > what you want.
> 
> Not exactly. To the �??don't say you wrote this�??, you have to add �??give  
> credit to the original author if ever you derive from it�??. Your statement  
> is only valid is the case of the redistribution of an unmodified work.  
> Anyway, modified or not, credit to the original author(s) must be kept.

I don't dispute the fine points you raised but my view is that those
requirements are accepted common decency in interactions between people and
aren't restrictions on the software per se.

For example if you teach a person something or give him an answer to a
problem and then he presents it as his own work, everyone should view him
as an ungrateful scoundrel and cheat. This is the way human interaction
works, "credit where credit is due" is expected proper behavior. Plagiarism
is already viewed as misconduct to the point of criminal liability in some
cases, and attribution is an established basic social requirement. I don't
view that as a licensing restriction since it applies to everything.

It has nothing to do with software specifically, it is related to how people
conduct themselves everywhere in society. People in the software industry
have to follow the same rules and social standards as everyone else. Those
rules apply to everything, not just computer programs. But even if they are
rules, they don't have any affect on the software itself. It can be used,
changed, distributed, or withheld, as anyone sees fit. It doesn't seem to me
requiring attribution means there are any restrictions on the software.