

Looks like a bunch of NetBSD code was used in Sony PSP. Fun!  - iamabhi9
http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/bx/blosxom.cgi/index.front?-tags=sony

======
tshtf
Last I checked this was in line with the NetBSD license:

    
    
      * 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.
      * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
      *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Yes, it is following the letter of the law, but the NetBSD people are also
free to complain about it.

OpenBSD does the same: they list a bunch of vendors at [1] but they note on
[2]:

> In the 10 years since the inception of the OpenSSH project, these companies
> have contributed not even a dime of thanks in support of the OpenSSH project
> (despite numerous requests).

1: <http://www.openssh.com/users.html> 2: <http://www.openssh.com/>

~~~
cbo
Sure, they _can_ complain.

But if they're going to, they should just impose more restrictions on using
their code. Maybe even a copyleft license.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

~~~
iamandrus
If Sony were using my code in their product, I'd be pretty excited and proud
to have created something that a huge company would use.

------
jensnockert
Why change the headline?

"NetBSD code in Sony Playstation Portable Logix pointed me at the license of
the Sony Playstation Portable (PSP), which looks like a bunch of NetBSD code
was used. Fun." is a lot more positive than the headline used.

~~~
iamabhi9
Alright. Updated. I did not want a flamewar :)

------
halayli
NetBSD is under BSD license. They don't have to contribute back.

------
protomyth
It would be polite, and NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD all have frameworks for
companies to contribute money. Some folks just don't, but the license doesn't
require it.

Companies that modify the code would do well to contribute that code back. It
really isn't a matter of nicety in that circumstance, but a cost savings
measure. Constantly having to patch after each release or, worse, being stuck
because the community picked a different solution since the company's solution
was not presented makes for increased costs. Losing the testing and expertise
of the community should be incentive enough.

I have never believed requiring participation like a copyleft license would
actually improves things. They don't want to engage and forced engagement
really isn't going to help you. Let them learn the problems of going it alone.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Sometimes the GPL is a win simply because "otherwise upstream won't have our
patches" isn't a high enough short-term cost to overcome the bureaucratic
inertia required to release them, but "otherwise we can't use their code at
all" makes them compare the cost of license clearance to the cost of
reimplementing the GPL'd code.

~~~
protomyth
I'd rather have organizations that get the deal then companies forced into it.
To often we get "code dumps" with the GPL and not an engaged company.

------
iamabhi9
Changed the title. I think I made the title sound more negative.

------
CoffeeDregs
Erm. 2006?

