Wrong wrong wrong.
You interpretation is not relevant.  The interpretation of the law is.

You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience.
"I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now" doesn't

make it so.  Try it and see what happens.
Let me try once more to explain how this works.  Here is the license of

a piece of code I wrote:

 * Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom

 *

 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any

 * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the

 * above  copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
This means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you MUST

maintain the copyright & license.  It says on ALL copies therefore this

includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc.
The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law.  That's a

judge's job.  I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am

stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law.  Don't like

that?  I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree

with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

quoted text
> Theo de Raadt wrote:

> >

> >For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change

> >the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that

> >conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).

> >

> >It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,

> >because it is a legal document.

>

>    With respect to both you and Eban, I  would disagree..

>

>    The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.

>    The license is a part of the copyrighted work.

>    It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law.

Wrong.  Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders

some of these rights.  Copyright is INCLUSIVE.  In other words if if

write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is

completely covered by copyright.  One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify it

& can NOT distribute it.  It is the most restrictive license.
>

quoted text
>    The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright

> notice, not the license itself,

>    And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright

> notice would likely violate copyright law.

Not "likely"; it is breaking the law.
>

quoted text
>    BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with

> no availability of source - and no preservation

>    of license.

Try to run strings on windows command line utilities.  You'll see that

they preserved the copyrights as required.
If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file you

are breaking the law.
>

quoted text
>    The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a

> "License to Steal"

We can't help people living in alternate realities and making their own

interpretations.  It is wrong.  Let me quote my license once more:

 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am the only one capable of giving up that right.  The GPL crowd can't

go around relicensing my code without violating this.
>

quoted text
>    I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being

> co-opted by Linux developers.

>    To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the

> BSD crowd what they have gone to great

>    pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the

> golden rule.

You mean the law?
>

quoted text
>    BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC

> Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the

>    copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License.

Let me try to point it out:

 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

quoted text
>    Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my

> understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license.

>

>    BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you

> to do most anything with BSD code.

>    Am I missing the part where that freedom includes  removing the

> license  ?

Yes, read this part:

 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

quoted text
>     How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical

> that what many commercial developers have already done ?

>

>     If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then

> craft your license to prohibit it.

It is crafted that way:

 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

quoted text
>    If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize,  but my view  of

> this  dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally,

>    but quite legally doing  to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the

> BSD License allows them to.

You are misinterpreting the law.