> (b) it's an illustration that the rules of intellectual property and open source are not always clear, even to those following well-established patterns.
I don't think there is anywhere on the internet that will tell you that you can't copy a BSD licence. How did the original author decide on the BSD?
The problem seems to be that he didn't really decide.
It's easy to make a quick decision when releasing software that cannot be taken back.
And when you're finally realizing your mistake, you can only resort to what we're seeing here: pleas and threats.
And of course, on the whole huge Internet you will always have people who defy you either for legitimate reasons or just out of spite. So it's practically guaranteed that you end up with war.
I cannot make up my mind whether we should blame him (for being so nonchalant with the license) or Google (for luring him into this trap without properly educating him on the consequences).
Blaming Google is, in my opinion, patronizing the author. There's no evidence of them having tried to deceive him, and the BSD is a very well known license.
I sympathize with him, but that doesn't mean there must be someone else to blame.
I don't think there is anywhere on the internet that will tell you that you can't copy a BSD licence. How did the original author decide on the BSD?