On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:42 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
  [responding to Dmitrij Czarkoff:] 
quoted text
> > So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
> > dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing
> > deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the
> > license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do
> > whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted
> > prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until
> > otherwise stated by the developper.
> 
> That is utterly false.
> 
> All of the licenses we use in the open source world
> 
> 	(1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author
> 
> 	(2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author.

I would say this is probably true of any license anywhere. To be honest,
though, the philosophy is actually a lot closer to the free software
movement started by Richard Stallman than the open source movement later
splintered off by whoever it was (Eric Raymond maybe?).

The main difference seperating us (the BSD-derived OS camp) from the
GNU(/Linux) camp is the differing social goals we are after. I, of
course, consider myself closer to the GNU camp, but have no problem
contributing to a BSD-licensed project under that license. Not that my
programming skills are yet back up to snuff to do so, but that's a rant
for another day and thread...

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>