> > To me, we should change the license and > > add some clauses to deny the right to > > duplicate the whole work making little > > changes and renaming the product. > > To us, the developers, it must remain as it is. > Sorry if I sound too harsh but the fact is that, > as Ingo pointed out, the license is MIT and > won't change. So move along and drop this. There seems to be some confusion here and there about this whole licensing thing. To clarify a little: OpenBeOS is not one product, but a compilation of several independent works. Each kit, server, add-on, driver, or whatever is a separate thing, and is separately licensed. Most are licensed under the terms of the MIT license. But our CVS tree also contains code that is otherwise licensed: BSD, (L)GPL, and the Be Sample Code License to name but a few. So it makes no sense to say "OpenBeOS uses the MIT license", because there is more than one license. Having said that, the MIT license is the dominant one. Code that uses a different license will only be added to the CVS as a matter of exception, and if there is a very good reason to do so. By the way, if you want to change the license, you can always fork the project and add your restrictions. (Heh heh.) Matthijs