Well their "Open Source Definition" here - http://opensource.org/osd - seems pretty copyleft-ish to my reading, particularly clauses 2 and 7.
I'm not trying to say BSD licensed stuff isn't open source, or anything ideologically driven at all (god forbid I start another license flamewar). Just seems a minor inconsistency.
The notable feature of copyleft is that it applies to derivatives.
So for 7, some software that incorporated BSD licensed code under some additional terms might not meet the open source definition, but the BSD source project would.
Copyleft requires that a derivative project be available under the same terms as the original work (or so, I guess some licenses might be mixable or whatever).
Ah, right. It's possible to release BSD-licensed works in such a way that they're not open source, yes. But if you do receive the source code, the license grants you all the freedoms you require to be able to satisfy the open source definition.
I'm not trying to say BSD licensed stuff isn't open source, or anything ideologically driven at all (god forbid I start another license flamewar). Just seems a minor inconsistency.
I may well just be reading it wrong.