"Flameeyes (a Gentoo/FreeBSD developer) recently came up with some serious problems among the various *BSD projects who use BSD-4 licensed code (which is all of them). Even other projects like Open Darwin may be affected. The saga started when he discovered the license problems with libkvm and start-stop-daemon. "libkvm is a userspace interface to FreeBSD kernel, and it's licensed under the original BSD license, BSD-4 if you want, the one with the nasty advertising clause." start-stop-daemon links to libkvm, but it's licensed under the GPL which is incompatible with the advertising clause. The good news is that the University of California/Berkley has given people permission to drop the advertising clause. The bad news is that libkvm has code from many other sources and each of them needs to give their permission for the license to be changed. At the moment, development on the Gentoo/FreeBSD is on hold and the downloads have been removed from the Gentoo mirrors."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-09-24
Aren't they looking at this a bit bass-ackwards. stop-start-daemon was written after libkvm and used code from libkvm. It would seem the authors of stop-start-daemon should have paid attention to what the license was on the code they borrowed and chose to properly respect it, not turn around and expect the authors of libkvm to relicense because they don't like the ad clause.
Member since:
2005-06-30
I was thinking that GPL had gotten over the BSD license issue since god-knows-when, and never thought there was an aftermath...
Anyway, this goes to show how an infinitely small item can cause general mayhem. And that the continual recreation of licenses mildly different from each other is Bad(TM).
However, it won't hurt the main community. Few people use Gentoo/FreeBSD. Rather, Apple and MS may be worse hit -- both used much of BSD code in their own system, and exactly how many copyright violations they have made... (I've personally never seen any Apple or MS ad with the clause...)
And some people can still throw chairs around and warn that Linux potentially violate patents. Seems like they aren't so legal after all...
Member since:2006-08-09
Member since:2005-12-02
"However, it won't hurt the main community. Few people use Gentoo/FreeBSD. Rather, Apple and MS may be worse hit -- both used much of BSD code in their own system, and exactly how many copyright violations they have made... (I've personally never seen any Apple or MS ad with the clause...) "
There is no ad required to show the clause, but that the clause be in the source code. The GPL strictly forbids the clause from being used.
Member since:
2006-11-08
This is exactly the type of confusion the Stallman will introduce when he tries to block Novell with the GLP v3 clauses. These licenses are becoming more restrictive they are becoming more of a pain.
I have several customers who like Linux and enjoy the level of customization however say that the license disputes are making them consider either OS X or windows.
The license thing is becoming a real problem and put customers potentially at risk such as the on hold issue of projects.
Member since:2006-03-12
"I have several customers who like Linux and enjoy the level of customization however say that the license disputes are making them consider either OS X or windows. "
Absolutely...and I suspect strongly that they get it from you. Its not like every program on OSX/Windows does not contain some serious restrictions that those EULA's http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php, by its very nature is more of a minefield for the user.
Member since:
2006-12-15
...is the problem, again and again. No other oss license is so restrictive and incompatible with other licenses. The FSF and GPL become more and more annoying. If GPL v3 makes things worse (the current version in discussion really is), I hope we finally see more and more developers who choose a different oss license. Not even the FSF lawyers seem to fully understand the GPL, even v2.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""...is the problem, again and again."""
Indeed, GPL is causing an increasing number of problems within the FOSS community itself. To make matters worse, as the FSF thinks it can get away with it, it tightens its grip. Even GPLv2 projects are vulnerable to the viral nature of the GPLv3 (draft).
I hate to admit it. But perhaps Balmer was right, and GPL really *is* a cancer.
Edited 2007-01-08 18:59
Member since:2005-07-10
Member since:2005-06-29
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the problem isn't caused by the GPL,
It appears the GPL is incompatible with the old BSD license-- not the other way around. Not placing the "blame", just making an observation.
but by an old and outdated BSD license with an advertising clause that everyone today agrees was a bad idea to begin with.
Everyone? NetBSD still uses the clause.
Member since:2005-07-10
It appears the GPL is incompatible with the old BSD license-- not the other way around.
Yes Thom. Because the software under the GPL is in this cased linked against other software (and this software is under the old BSD license). If it were the other way around, we'd still have the same situation, only with reversed roles.
To sum it up, this observation is absolutely meaningless, unless if you want to spread FUD, as some people here, not you, tried to.
Everyone? NetBSD still uses the clause.
They do? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing it out.
This doesn't really change my point though, as now nearly everyone, with the notable exception of some NetBSD devs obviously, agrees with the advertising clause being a bad idea.
Member since:2005-11-18
Yes Thom. Because the software under the GPL is in this cased linked against other software (and this software is under the old BSD license). If it were the other way around, we'd still have the same situation, only with reversed roles.
Thom's observation is not meaningless IMO. Even the 4-clause BSD license is compatible with most licenses (a broad range of opensource licenses to proprietary software), while there barely exists a license that is compatible with the GPL. The GPL embodies a philosophy of freedom, you can be for or against that, but it causes all kinds of licensing backlash. (Still, it is perfectly ok to do that, it's the right of the copyright holders of software how they want to license it.)
This doesn't really change my point though, as now nearly everyone, with the notable exception of some NetBSD devs obviously, agrees with the advertising clause being a bad idea.
"Some NetBSD devs" is downplaying the meaning of the 4-clause BSD license. The NetBSD license is the official license for code donated to The NetBSD Foundation, and the foundation has:
$ grep "ENTITY" developers.ent | wc -l
324
developers, and many contributors who do not have commit bits. That's a significant developer body in the world of opensource operating systems.
with an advertising clause that everyone today agrees was a bad idea to begin with.
Well, not everybody 
. And if you are giving software away to the net with a clause that says
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: <copyright holder>
seems very reasonable to me, considering that the license has virtually no other strings attached (besides including the license text).
Edited 2007-01-08 19:54
Member since:2006-09-24
Member since:2005-07-10
Whether or not you or anyone else believes the ad clause is a bad idea (i don't particularly like it myself), the devs who developed start-stop-daemon still have to respect and honor the license on the code they borrowed. End of story.
Did I or anyone else suggest in any way otherwise?
Member since:2006-12-31
@Thom:
NetBSD uses the modified BSD License with one addition. The advertising clause requirement was removed by the Regents of the University of California.
"Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
Source: http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/redistribution.html
Member since:2005-06-29
The default NetBSD license is the original BSD license WITH the clause. Read the page you linked to:
"The NetBSD Foundation's (TNF) license is a “4 clause” Berkeley-style license, which is used for all code contributed to TNF. If you write code and assign the copyright to TNF, this is the license that will be used."
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-06-30
Nice flame. You must be quite self-suffisent to impose your views on morality on others, especially when these BSD folks must have made far more contributions to the community that you ever did. Although I don't believe the BSD licence is ideal, I would certainly not question their choice. Everybody can benefit, including users of the GPL; if they don't mind commercial exploitation, then it's cool. I don't really understand why some people believe companies are inherently evil when they probably work for one, unless they are self-employed or a civil servant...
You mention that Microsoft borrowed the USB stack from FreeBSD. Show me.
As for the Gentoo/FreeBSD issue, I guess that shit happens. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to rewrite the affected utility. That said, re-read the story -- it looks like they have found a solution to continue development.
Member since:2005-11-18
You are totally right. BSDs must turn to GPL, otherwise I will continue to feel on BSDs like working on Windows. I cannot understand the BSD licence. For example MS finds a bug in the USB stack it borrowed and fixes it. But it never returns the bugfix back. So MS has an advantage over FreeBSD.
I know that this is probably a troll, but it is a common stream of thought. I would like to point out that it misses a huge advantage of the BSD license: it creates standardized implementations. Basically everyone can integrate BSD code without cost and giving back to the community. This is such a low barrier that software vendors will often do this.
A good example is the TCP/IP stack of BSD and its decendants. Practically everybody uses it, or copied it (as in its design). Now, suppose that UCB had used a more restrictive license, many vendors, from the meriad of UNIX vendors that have existed over time, Microsoft, vendors of systems for embedded devices, etc. would probably have done their own implementation, with their own extensions and incompatibilities, leaving a huge "protocol hell".
The BSD license and comparable licenses are great for infrastructural code. Think TCP/IP stack, FFS/UFS, X11, IPsec, USB stack, etc. (in other words, most of the operating system) So, it makes a lot of sense to implement new protocols and technologies under the BSD license if you want to make them standardized.
(I think it's great for other software too, but that's just my humble personal opinion.)
Member since:2005-07-13
I hate to admit it. But perhaps Balmer was right, and GPL really *is* a cancer.
The GPL is a tool and like all tools needs to be used properly to be effective.
Despite it's shortcomings, GPL v2 has proven to be the most popular and, arguably, the most effective license for encouraging reciprocal development for OSS projects.
Yes, if people taint GPL projects with non-compatible code, there will be a problem but that is by design. It's up to developers to understand the licensing.
As for v3, it is incompatible with v2 by design so simply becomes a new licensing alternative. It's impact on current v2 projects will be minimal to non-existent; most of the core projects that would have the ability to impact that type of paradigm shift in licensing will either stay v2 (ie. the kernel) or will adopt v3 but still retain LGPL licensing (ie. the GNU projects) which minimizes the "viral" nature of a transition. So gcc switching to v3 doesn't force developers using gcc to produce v3 apps, and libc switching to v3 doesn't restrict it's useage to v3 apps, for instance. Developers will simply select v2 or v3 based on their objectives, much as they choose between GPL and BSD or alternatives today.
But dismissing the GPL because of it's intentional incompatibility with less restrictive licenses is a bit of an overreaction when it has proven so successful despite that. That restrictiveness is likely part of the attraction for the majority of devs that select it.
Member since:2006-01-23
Member since:2005-07-24
"""But at least Richard Stallman doesn't throw chairs...but then again. :-)"""
If the greater community were somehow able to thwart Richard's ramrodding-through of his GPLv3, I suspect we'd see some Olympic Class chair throwing on his part.
Hey, I'd buy a ticket to watch. ;-)
Member since:2006-03-12
"No other oss license is so restrictive and incompatible with other licenses".
restrictive for whom.
"GPL v3 makes things worse" GPL3 makes my life *less* *restrictive* that the point or have you not been keeping up. Seriously you should read about the license.
"Not even the FSF lawyers seem to fully understand the GPL, even v2."
I'm absolutely certain underlying premise to GPL is really simple...the only debate *ever* is how to get around it.
Edited 2007-01-08 19:33
Member since:2006-12-15
"restrictive for whom."
Everybody, developers and users.
"GPL3 makes my life *less* *restrictive* that the point or have you not been keeping up. Seriously you should read about the license."
The GPL v3 doesn't give me the right to decide whether I want use DRM software or not. How is this not a ristriction? Gimme a break...
Member since:2006-09-08
"
The GPL v3 doesn't give me the right to decide whether I want use DRM software or not. How is this not a ristriction? Gimme a break...
"
WRONG it restricts use on DRM'd hardware like Tivo and (probably Sveasoft's firmware for routers), that stops you from running modifications on it with the source they give. Look up "Tivoization". It has nothing to do with software DRM.
And yes GPL3 does stop the deal with Novell-- isn't that a good thing for the people who chose to license under it? The deal specifically leaves commercial vendors out of their patent blanket and open for suits.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:
2005-06-29
It's important to say that Gentoo/FreeBSD isn't Gentoo AND FreeBSD. It's neither one nor the other, it's a subproject of the Gentoo Foundation that combines best of both worlds, and they call it the "Gentoo/FreeBSD" project: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/bsd/fbsd/
Member since:2006-07-16
Member since:
2005-07-06
Actually, this issue could potentially impact every BSD flavour out-there.
"All of the *BSD-derived projects took some way or another code licensed 4-BSD that is not under copyright of UCB, that would then require them to provide the acknowledgements on all the “advertising material”, whatever that is. And I’m pretty sure most of the *BSD projects have something that can be considered advertisement even to the stricter of the meaning."
Edited 2007-01-08 19:12
Member since:
2005-08-26
Member since:
2006-03-12
Member since:
2006-03-23
this gpl bitching is getting old, its completely moronic.
people choose a license, for THEIR work, they made it, they choose, and people must in turn comply.
NOBODY forces people to use gpl'ed work, be it version 2 or 3.
when will people stop bitch that they CANT take stuff licensed under a given license, and not comply? its insane.
Member since:2006-02-01
Member since:2005-07-24
"""In this case it was the authors of stop-start-daemon who used code from a 4-BSD licensed library and did not comply with the license."""
Indeed. It is a case of GPL authors being so used to sucking code from other OSS projects without having to give anything back that they did not even bother to check to see if they were stepping upon other people's toes.
Edited 2007-01-08 21:05
Member since:2006-03-12
"Indeed. It is a case of GPL authors being so used to sucking code from other OSS projects without having to give anything back"
80% of OS projects use GPL Licence clearly GPL are not giving anything back.
Even with BSD its about sharing...Have a look for a company that uses BSD code and hasn't given it back, and perhaps vent your bile at them.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-09-24
Member since:2006-03-23
i dont think you quite understand, i was commenting on those "oohhh noooeesss gpl viral death gplv3 sucks blablablabla" people, which are absolutely free to not use gpled stuff.
and as for this immediate issue, yes, someone overlooked the license for some software, and as a result cant distribute as it would violate the license, HOWEVER, seeing as this is a simple(well) mistake, and no one is deliberately trying to steal anyones work, they are naturally going to stop doing anything against the license of libkvm.
Member since:2006-09-24
I understand it was a simple mistake. I still say there is no excuse whatsoever for it, but it was a mistake. I mean the damn BSD license is less than a page long and can be read in under 30 seconds. It almost definately took these devs longer to read the documentation on libkvm's functions than it would have to read the license end to end.
All that aside, what gets me is that the start-stop-daemon developers' use of the GPL is what caused the conflict. At no point did these guys consider not using the GPL where is doesn't fit or writing their own code to fill in for the functions used from libkvm. Nope their initial response was to try and get libkvm relicensed because they're arrogant enough to believe their license superceeds all.
Member since:
2006-11-05
Because UC Berkeley changed the licensing on all 4-clause BSD licensed files with their copyright some time ago (see /COPYRIGHT on any FreeBSD machine), the clause 3 that worried the author of the article was never relevant, though it was still included in the file headers by accident.
As a result of this silliness, this has now (with the exception of the powerpc module, which isn't used in Gentoo/FreeBSD anyway) been corrected: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libkvm/
This is not now a problem, was never a problem, and if the author of the article had done a little more research (or work: it would have been trivial to rewrite start-stop-daemon), it would never have been one.
Edit:
Reading the source to start-stop-daemon (http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-src/rc-scripts/src/star...),
it isn't even GPL, the software is released under the public domain, which is compatible with any license. Is the article some weird troll?
Edited 2007-01-08 20:40
Member since:2006-09-24
1. UC Berkeley can do as they wish. libkvm is not copyrighted to UCB. It's authors willingly chose the 4-BSD license for their own reasons and as of yet have not given the waivers that UCB did.
2. The stop-start-daemon.c you linked to isn't the one in question. The one you linked to is 2 years old and the daemon has been rewritten under the GPL since then.
Edited 2007-01-08 20:59
Member since:2006-11-05
Read the files. It's a Berkeley copyright:
Copyright (c) 1989, 1992, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
This is true on all but two files (kvm_powerpc.c and kvm_arm.c). In the case of kvm_arm, they have contacted the author and removed the advertising clause. The only tainted file is thus kvm_powerpc.c, which isn't used in Gentoo anyway.
As for (2), I wasn't aware that there were multiple versions. Thanks for the correction.
Member since:
2005-07-10
Member since:2006-03-12
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16840&comment_id=197229
WOW now why would someone who makes pro Vista comments and anti-everything else like the BSD from the quote above get involved in a discussion like this...and make a statement like that.
Member since:2005-07-10
Member since:2006-03-12
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16636&comment_id=188439
Your colours are quite clear. Why when someone is...so passionate about Microsoft makes posts in an Open source License debate I must say I find it a little questionable.
Please state your reasons, I'm very interested.
Edited 2007-01-08 23:30
Member since:2005-07-10
The reason is software ecosystem.
1. Universities do research and release code under BSD style license.
2. Many of these projects are very good and picked up by companies to commercialize them.
3. These companies (in turn software engineers in thse companies) makes money and make software engineering a lucrative discipline for students.
4. The companies donate some of the money back to universities.
5. Go to step 1.
This is the ecosystem promoted by BSD. GPL breaks that. If you ever read statistics, students are losing interest in computer science and once they see that it is not financial a good field to support their family, you will see even less people in this field.
That is why i like BSD and not Linux.
The all combined GPL based products have earned less money than even a handful of non-GPL products.
In a country like USA where a doctor charge 300$ for 30 minutes appointment, you need money to live a good life and GPL is not making software as an interesting field to make that kind of money.
I hope this explains well to you now.
Member since:2006-07-30
"In a country like USA where a doctor charge 300$ for 30 minutes appointment, you need money to live a good life and GPL is not making software as an interesting field to make that kind of money."
Here we go again... *sigh*
Seriously, I don't know how often you visit the doctor but I've read this a couple of times too often.
I'm not a pro-GPL guy but this sort of pseudo argument makes me sick.
I know you didn't say that but it sounds like:
Oh, no! I got children and a wife, I cannot develop GPL software or we'd all starve.
I developed GPL software so I had no money to go and see a doctor and died of cancer! You see, GPL _is_ cancer!
You've never heard of people working for companies on GPL software?
Or people coding in their free time just for the fun of it?
Seriously, get a life!
Member since:2005-07-10
Count all the companies and tell me the number of employees in a GPL based software companies and non-GPL based.
I think you got the answer.
I don't know if you live in US or not but even if you don't go to doctor, you still have to take medical insurance because without it, if an emergency comes up, you are screwed. Medical bill range many times upto 50000$ or more.
The typical good medical insurance cost around 1000$ a month for family still for stuff like dental i pay around 100$ per month out of pocket.
Now think of housing in US, you pay around 3000$ per month for a 3 bedroom house.
Once you start looking at reality, you will get the picture.
I am not anti OSS, i don't like GPL. I think GPL prohibits innovation and prevents commercialization of software in a very captialist world.
So unless you change the world from capitalist to something where everyone gets equal share of pie, i don't think i will ever support GPL.
Btw RandomGuy there is no need to do personal attack just because you disagree:) So take a chill pill.
Edited 2007-01-09 01:10
Member since:2006-07-30
"Count all the companies and tell me the number of employees in a GPL based software companies and non-GPL based.
I think you got the answer."
Hmm, sort of. I mean, I know what you're trying to tell me.
If you have any numbers and something to back them up, feel free to post them
I'd especially like to know how the ratio GPL/BSD based companies is.
Anyway, what I wanted to say was not that working on GPL based software is an easy way to world domination, I just wanted to prove that you _can_ make hard cold cash, working on GPL software. It's not impossible.
Considering that many companies somehow get into GPL stuff (Sun, Trolltech) it seems to be getting easier, too. Working on some major GPL-project might also prove quite useful if you want to get a job at a regular IT-company.
I won't comment on the costs of living in the US since
a) I'm from Germany and
b) this is unrelated to what I'm talking about.
I'm not saying that you need no money.
I was just tired of the "I need to pay the doctor"-argument since it always comes up along with "all GPL developers live in their parent's basements" and the like.
I'd like people to be at least a little bit creative in spreading misconceptions.
If this is not what you intend to do please don't take any offence, it's just what it looked like. Especially considering I have seen the very same wording over and over again.
"I am not anti OSS, i don't like GPL. I think GPL prohibits innovation and prevents commercialization of software in a very captialist world."
I beg to differ.
The GPL made a whole new range of cooperation of different companies possible by making sure everybody had to contribute back and could not just leak code.
Let's not just talk about commercial interests but also about the many open source projects that enjoyed growth and success and did a lot of innovation, all under the GPL. I'm not sure this is just coincidence. But to discuss this in detail would go beyond the scope of this post.
You are, however, right in that the GPL prevents some forms of commercialization while encouraging others.
Which are better is left to personal judgement.
"So unless you change the world from capitalist to something where everyone gets equal share of pie, i don't think i will ever support GPL."
Hey, slow down! I like capitalism just fine
Actually, I strongly dislike all sorts of communism.
However, GPL!=communism
There are companies making money of GPL software, mostly by selling support.
They work right here and right now.
"Btw RandomGuy there is no need to do personal attack just because you disagree:) So take a chill pill."
Personal attacks were not what I had in mind.
It just seems to me that you drank _way_ too much anti-GPL koolaid - actually it looks more like you took a dive in it 
Maybe I got you wrong but you seem to be saying:
#GPL==communism
#GPL==cancer
Which seems to be a rather lame copy of MS-FUD.
I hate to use the word "FUD" but it's just that.
And to make 100% sure everybody got it:
a) I don't want to attack you, as a person.
b) I'm not a communist.
c) I do think you drank way too much MS-koolaid.
Member since:2006-01-22
Now you get to the point. Satanic capitalism is the problem. Not GPL. I do not believe in capitalism because it does not promote anything. GPL is about cooperation and humans. BSD is for enterprises. Capitalism my friend prevents innovation, you don't see it immediately but the time is very close and if GPL would not be there MS would kill FreeBSD in months. So stop the "BSD rocks" FreeBSD lives with time bought by Linux.
Member since:2006-11-15
only big companies that sell support to big companies make money from GPL. Small companies that sell software that don't require support won't make any money from GPL.
So we see that GPL favors the rich: big companies or those who can afford to give things away for free.
Member since:2006-03-23
Member since:2006-03-12
You hate *BSD but love the license, and love Microsoft.
The ecosystem you describe is...Universities do work which Microsoft can pass off as their own.
I'm 100% certain that most Universities expect to get money from their projects one way or another today, and I'm not sure why you would expect them to do otherwise.
BTW the software ecosystem(sic) of GPL existed before any other, GPL is just a license that enforces it.
Member since:2006-08-31
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:
2006-09-21
Member since:
2006-05-09
Member since:
2006-11-18
from gentoo.org:
What is Gentoo/FreeBSD?
Gentoo/FreeBSD is a subproject of the Gentoo/Alt project, with the goal of providing a fully-capable FreeBSD operating system featuring design sensibilities taken from Gentoo Linux, such as the init system and the Portage package management system.
Switch Ports to Portage - What for? You dont get nothing new and You get something slower and less polished then Ports system.
Switch Linux kernel to FreeBSD kernel and use it with Portage - Again. What for? With Linux kernel you get only advantages in that case, Crossover Office, great Wine and Cedega support, native VMware, Oracle ... and many more to stick with Linux kernel.
Init System - instead of rc scripts, is Init so fscking outrageous to switch to it, *BSD rc scripts do their job very well so why bother Init?
Run FreeBSD OS with its strenghts/stability/scalability or go Gentoo all the way and benefit from Linux kernel and bigger commercial support for it.
Member since:
2005-07-15
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/unix/bsd/archives/the-big-license-mess-1...
It's a non-issue.
One guy is confused, and now everyone who listens to him gets confused.
Member since:
2006-04-21