OSNews

Full ack :-)

Let's see...
I just looked at the recent source code and it STILL has that paragraph:

* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

With the following date under it: 2004/01/13
If you didn't like the license-text, then why the hell did you contribute to that??? You must have known that somebody COULD make that code GPL-only.

You added code to a project that had both a permissive and a strong copyleft license, then throw a hissyfit when someone licenses that code under just one of those licenses? Your kidding, right?

Word of advice; Suck it up!

Even without knowing the actual legal points of who was right and who was wrong, it always seemed very strange to me that the BSD folks were throwing fits about this situation. I had always assumed that the entire point of contributing to BSD licensed code was to get it used by as many people as possible, regardless of the license other people used, which is why they allowed proprietary developers to use it without any restrictions. So it seemed odd that they would complain about the GPL which still actually distributed all the changes that had been made and not proprietary vendors who hid all their changes to the code. I guess getting people to use the code isn't what the BSD license is all about after all.

>>I guess getting people to use the code isn't what the BSD license is all about after all.

This is about ethics, not law.

Driver 1 is licensed under BSD. Somebody converts to GPL. We now have 2 almost identical codebases, with 2 licenses. One is BSD, the other is GPL.
GPL or BSD, both are open source. GPL projects can use BSD code. BSD projects can not use GPL code.

Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.

Code contributions made under the GPL licensebenefits the GPL project only.

"Thank you for working your ass off for the last years. We take it from here. KTHX."

This is about ethics, not law.

I agree, that's what I was talking about as I really haven't followed the situation closely enough to know what the legal situation is.

Driver 1 is licensed under BSD. Somebody converts to GPL. We now have 2 almost identical codebases, with 2 licenses. One is BSD, the other is GPL.
GPL or BSD, both are open source. GPL projects can use BSD code. BSD projects can not use GPL code.

You forgot about the other someone else who integrates Driver 1 into their proprietary product, making 3 almost identical codebases. No one can use the third project except for the proprietary vendor, who says "Thank you for working your ass off for the last years. We take it from here. KTHX."

None of the BSD people seem to have any problem with this, and in fact they seem to advertise it as a success story - they're happy that other people are able to use their code. So it seems like a strange little disconnect that they have such a problem with the GPL version, although I'll admit the situations aren't exactly the same.

Edited 2007-09-30 18:43

"Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.

Code contributions made under the GPL license benefits the GPL project only."

...you forgot one main point if code is incorporated into GPL licensed code, the original BSD is still available. In fact the BSD users can still get the GPL freedoms from the code, benefits not granted under the very same code tied up into a binary product, and these are things helpful to BSD projects. The second point that cannot be understated as why BSD users shouldn't force there morals on GPL coders as opposed to binary coders. Especially if your asking them to forgo copyleft part of the license they have chosen GPL for.

Developers who use code in a binary product benefits themselves. Why should GPL coders compromise their morals to have them abused by others. The very thing you are objecting to.

You have to think that if the argument is going to be on moral grounds those who complain clearly need a license that say enforces this sharing say...GPL. The irony is clearly lost on you.

GPL projects can use BSD code. BSD projects can not use GPL code.

Of course BSD projects can use GPL'ed code. They can even modify that GPL'ed code and they can distribute the GPL'ed code with the modifications they've made. The GPL allows all this. It's just that the modified code also needs to be GPL'ed and BSD projects don't generally want to ship any code they've written under the GPL.

But there's a big difference between a case where you don't want to use some code and another case where you're not allowed to use it. BSD projects are allowed use GPL'ed code but they just don't want to. So it's not really the GPL restricting BSD projects, it's rather the BSD projects restricting themselves (and then blaming the GPL).

Of course BSD projects can use GPL'ed code

IF you license under BSD, you want your product to be able to be used by ALL. Even closed source products. Simply everybody, for any use (Does it get much more free than this?).

By accepting GPL code into your project, you put restrictions on the entire product.

So what's the problem with using it in a GPLed product, then? It may be more restrictive than the BSDL, but it's certainly a lot more open than closed source!

Thanks for exposing the double standards some of the BSD advocates have demonstrated here...

> So what's the problem with using it in a GPLed product, then? It may be
> more restrictive than the BSDL, but it's certainly a lot more open than
> closed source!

I cannot speak for the previous poster(s), so I will just answer this question: Nothing! What is wrong is to re-license the source code under the GPL. I won't go into moral or ethics here; it's simply not permitted by the BSD license.

If you want to use BSD-licensed code in a GPL'ed project, just do it the same as a proprietary software vendor would do: leave the BSD license on those files intact. After all, proprietary vendors may not re-license the code either; they just have permission to distribute the code and modifications to it, in source or binary form.

> Thanks for exposing the double standards some of the BSD
> advocates have demonstrated here...

<sarcasm> Should I say, "welcome to OSNews"? </sarcasm>

This is about ethics, not law.

Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.

Code contributions made under the GPL licensebenefits the GPL project only.

"Thank you for working your ass off for the last years. We take it from here. KTHX."

I'm sorry, but that's just exceptionally silly, and I cannot help but laugh at that. That's the whole point of a BSD style license, and now you're complaining about it?! Do people complain when Apple or anyone else walks in and says "Right, we'll take it from here", and gives no code back from their own fork? You've also just described the very scenario as to why the GPL was created in the first place, and certainly the number one reason why Linus Torvalds wanted to use it for Linux!

I also see no reason why a mutually convenient arrangement from both OpenBSD and GPL/Linux parties could not be worked out, whereby Linux contributors could also contribute code under the BSD license and then license code under the GPL for Linux, as has been done so far anyway.

But, no. Theo doesn't want to talk about co-operation, but wants to throw hissy fits in retaliation because of the license that he and his fellow developers have all agreed on.

Edited 2007-09-30 20:49

I'm sorry, but that's just exceptionally silly, and I cannot help but laugh at that. That's the whole point of a BSD style license,

The point of the BSD license is to allow everybody to use the code in the matter that they want. If they want to give back fine. If they dont want to give back, thats also fine.

But when you copy it and GPL it, just for the sake of GPLing it, that is in my opinion unethical (but certainly perfectly legal).

How can it be unethical when that is exactly the goal of BSD, i.e. allow anyone to use the code in the matter that they want? Would taking BSD code and re-releasing the modified program as closed-source binaries be unethical as well?

I am a far cry from an expert on the subject but BSD code used in a closed source application would still be licensed under BSD code would it not?

As to GPL vs closed source uses of BSD code, I hold open source projects to a higher standard. If the original programmer releases a substantial chunk of code under a BSD license I personally consider it good manners to license the modifications under the BSD license as well. This does not preclude dual licensing the changes but part of the draw of open source is the synergy of a lot of developers doing what they love. I still have no clear knowledge as to whether it is "legal" to take BSD code and GPL it but also do not care to be honest. If you are going to use the work of others share your changes back with a license that honors the original code's license. Closed or Open Source I think this should be done.

The original, unaltered code still is, but any derivatives are not. That's the whole point.



The BSD license does indeed allow this. You should care, as this is what makes the BSD a "permissive" license.



This doesn't make any sense. If you use BSD code in a proprietary, closed-source program, you obviously cannot redistribute the closed-source program as BSD (since it would no longer be closed-source).

What you're looking for, i.e. a license that requires you to pass on your changes under license, already exists. It's called the GPL.

I think we can criticize someone taking up BSD code for commercial use and not giving anything back to the community "on the moral grounds". Not on the legal grounds. SUN has received same criticism in past.

And I think the criticism shouldn't always be treated as a negative thing. It can be very constructive at times so I don't see anything bad in being criticised even if it is on the moral grounds.

My thinking on the liceses is that GPL takes a Legal way to enforce the giving back while BSD takes a Moral way. I guess in today's world, may be the Moral ways doesn't work that well...eh?

Edited 2007-10-01 01:38

Oh that Peter Noone, always with taking of the copyrights ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Noone ).

"GPL projects can use BSD licensed code, but the reverse is not possible... interoperability dies instantly.."

proprietary Binary projects can use GPL licensed code, but the reverse is not possible...but with GPL the code is still available to *study*

If the case is that BSD is always the poorer half of the sharing equation then it needs to enforce this sharing. A example of this is GPL.

Companies writing GPL licensed code are usually happy to provide security patches and small fixes..to the BSD parts.

The thing I object to about your and other comments is the three lies you are trying to enforce.

1) Companies are moral.
GPL violations are common. They will get away with whatever they can, and will only do things that benefit them. In fact countless times on here we are subjected to amoral actions being excused for *buisness* reasons.

2) Companies use BSD.
Actually I suspect most will use Apache or GPL.

3) GPL authors(almost certainly working for companies) do not contribute back to BSD code. Actually spreading this lie amongst a *larger* GPL community will cause those who happily dual license and give back(sic) to BSD cause for thought.

Edited 2007-09-30 19:45

You're not getting it!

I think you've got that backwards.

in fact they are required under law

As I said, I'm talking only about that morals involved, not the specific legal situation. I'd like to hear someone (anyone) tell me why it is morally OK to integrate the code into a proprietary product which doesn't give anything back, but not OK to put it in a GPL product that still shares the code with the opensource community, at least part of it. Without getting into a "it's not legal" argument.

Companies using BSD licenced code are usually happy to provide security patches and small fixes.. Why? because the company is thankful for the developers..

GPL projects can use BSD licenced code, but the reverse is not possible... interoperability dies instantly..

That's much more of what I was looking for, but although there are plenty of proprietary companies that give back there are also plenty of others that don't. And the license seems to explicitly give permission for companies NOT to give anything back, so if that was so important to you wouldn't it make more sense to choose a license that forces you to give stuff back? By choosing BSD, it seems like you've made a conscious decision that companies giving back and contributing isn't the most important thing to you. Which is why I'm a bit confused that you do think GPL projects should be forced to do so.

Edited 2007-09-30 19:46

>> I'd like to hear someone (anyone) tell me why it is morally OK to integrate the code into a proprietary product which doesn't give anything back, but not OK to put it in a GPL product that still shares the code with the opensource community, at least part of it.

BSD cant use GPL code!

And your not giving back to a propritary product, your giving back to a Open Source BSD licensed project! (If you choose to do so)

So the point is that GPL can't ever go to BSD, but proprietary still has that option even though you're fine if it doesn't? I don't really agree with that viewpoint, but I guess I can at least understand it. Thanks.

I don't see this discussion, comments in this article, going anywhere...
specially when people mod down comments they just don't agree with (as, in OSNews, the mod down option isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with someone else... is about control spam, trolls and etc [*] )

This has been a problem for a _long_ time now, sadly.

The only solution is to browse at -5, since many of the most inslightful comments are often modded down just becuse people disagree.

"""

"""

I agree with the advice to browse at -5.

However, the solution is the same as in a democracy. Use your votes. If people do not vote up the comments which they believe are worthy, letting their votes go to waste, it gives a few abusive individuals excessive control over the score of other people's posts. Remember that these abusive people now have a practically unlimited number of comment votes with which to promote their reign of terror.

I know of a guy that I'm pretty sure has a list of at least three people, possibly more, whom he tracks via RSS and mods down every post they make. (I can't prove it. I'm just pretty sure.) And those people he mods down tend to make quality posts. We should be right there to mod them back up. And if we are too complacent to do so, it's our own fault. (I'm as guilty as anyone.)

The current mod system, like a democratic government, places the ultimate responsibility for how well things work upon *our* shoulders.

Personally, I think that we *all* have too many comment votes and that the number should be cut in half.

Edited 2007-10-02 18:24

Could the person who modded this poster down please explain why (i.e.the OP I'm replying to)? I see another post where someone (no names) calls another poster a "liar", yet he gets modded up.

This is not a discussion. This is mob rule.



edit: clarified.

Edited 2007-10-01 00:42

off-topic
=========

@anomie don't be shy you can mention me by name. I use the term "lie" when I should perhaps use words like "subterfuge"; "misinformation"; "propaganda"; "spin" or the ever weak "FUD"...but its *not* the right word.

It is a failing of me as a poster, that I cannot "pass myself off as a Disappointed Vista User" or "pretend to have common ground kinship even" or "point out a weak good point followed by a bad point"; or mention an vaguely on-topic post followed by a unsubstantiated attack", and maybe I should be building those very skills, which I admire in others. I simply do not have the skillset.

...but then I can only call a lie a lie. If thats upsetting then don't lie.

I want to point out that someone modded even your post down (which I modded back up +1). Not because I agree with your post -- which I don't particularly -- but because this entire discussion is a good case in point about why the "mod system" is being used as a tool to stifle discussion.

I would think that freedom proponents (both GPL and BSD folks) would thrive on free exchanges of ideas rather than trying to bury opposing views.

I don't know what else to say. I enjoy the osnews forums and the knowledgeable contributions I frequently read, but as usual a few disturbed individuals ruin it for the group.

Osnews commenting works that way. People mod down comments all the time because they disagree with something you say. I know it can get frustrating. As an example, i posted above a real example from a real-life (and very good) project about a license which is BSD but avoids the problem of people re-licensing code in GPL and people modded me down:).

http://www.osnews.com/reply.php?news_id=18704&comment_id=275437

There's really no reason that mods need to be anonymous. It would be good to require a one-line comment for negative mods (maybe a comment would be good for positive mods as well). It would make the various user factions clearer, but people would also think more before making bad mods.

I agree, IMHO transparency is always a good thing.

GPL camp shows such an intolerance and lack of respect towards other people's views that it is hardly in good taste. Forcing others to agree to your opinions doesn't sound right. But this is what GPL camp tries to do, stuff their agenda down others throat. The so called freedom army of stallman. If not by force then by code squatting.

Edited 2007-10-02 10:19

This thread is full of questions posed towards people who claim to represent the "BSD license camp" point of view.

Questions such as "what do you really want"? and "what did you actually mean to say"? and "if you really want that, why don't you just ask for it"?

It also contains repeated accusations about "the GPL camp is not moral", or "the GPL camp is this or that" ... accusations made by people who did not actually understand the GPL camp's position, and would not listen to it when it was explained to them.

Yet now, having had it patiently explained to them, we see a claim .

Incredible! Which side was it again seeking answers on the other sides views? Which side was it throwing out unfounded accusations about the other sides behaviour, without understanding? Which side was it that had a consistent, fair and unselfish position (protecting the interests of Joe public by keeping the code open) in the final analysis? And, most tellingly, which side was it that couldn't give straightforward answers to the simple question "what do you really want"?

It is almost unbelievable how badly some people can get the wrong end of the stick, and accuse others of bad behaviour that it turns out they themselves are guilty of.

I say "almost unbelievable" because there happens to be a psychological term that describes this type of phenomenon very well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Since there is a term for it, it must be, somewhat surprisingly, not that uncommon.

Edited 2007-10-02 10:43

To answer your question:

We want to see honesty in people so that if one benefits from our code then they contribute back to us in a un-selfish manner such that our contribution can let our industry grow.

GPL stand is that corporations are bad, we respectfully disagree. Since GPL people take our code, all we want from them is at least give us something in return. We don't want to force it, we just seek good behavior based on moral values. We can go legal way if we want but we want people to realize the value of moral values and not just talk to the hand approach.

SUN gives back, Apple gives back, heck even Microsoft gives back in terms of their funding in universities and releasing their code under BSD like WiX installer and under MS-PL.

So why can't someone from GPL camp who takes BSD code, simply give us at minimum equal number of line of code back under our license?

You have thoughroughly misunderstood the GPL stand, then. The GPL stand is not "corporations are bad", the GPL stand is twofold: "rip-off is bad" (no matter who does it) and "the code must remain open" (no matter who takes it). The second part of this stand prevents the first from happening.

Despite your apparent confusion over this, the fact that the code must remain open does NOT prevent commercialisation of the code. It is quite permissible to sell products with GPL code in them ... the only requirement is to make the source code available. This is done for many products ... I gave you a link to an example for mobile phones.



Sigh! How many times do you have to be told ... GPL developers are more than willing to give code back. They do this very thing themselves over and over ... it is almost their credo. The one and only thing they require is that there must be a proviso going with that code that it always remains open, there must be a stipulation on EVERYONE to give further changes back.

Since you claim that this is what you want, I ask, yet again for the umpteenth time ... why don't you put this as a condition in your license? As soon as you do that you will gain the ability to use GPL code. Why won't you do it?

You cannot claim that it would prevent commercialisation ... the fact that there are literally hundreds of products using GPL code gives the lie to that. So why on earth not make yourself GPL compatible?



And GPL developers would give back too, far more give back than any of these, if you would do that one simple act (that GPL developers need to see) of putting the requirement to give code back into your license. You say you want give back, so just require it of everybody who uses your code and all would be sweet.



I told you why, many times ... it is because your license does not require everyone to give code back. Therefore your license has no defense against abusive commercial interests who would take the code and rip off the unsuspecting public using it.

The amazing thing is, when it happens that "abusive commercial interests actually do take your code and rip off the unsuspecting public using it" you make not a murmur of protest, yet when GPL developers take your code and protect it against abuse and from being used to rip people off, you are up in arms over it? Puhhhhleeeeease.

Put the requirement to give code back as part of your license and all of your troubles would disappear in one fell swoop. Leave yourself open to abuse and parties will abuse you, and GPL developers can't help you I'm afraid.

Why exactly do you disagree?

I gave you an example of how it is possible to have commercialisation of code (even GPL code) yet keep the code open. This happens very often. GPL code is being used commercially all over the world.

I also gave you an example of exactly how it is bad to close the code and commercialise it. The example was Kerberos (it was not a BSD license it was an MIT license, but the point still holds). Kerberos was adopted by Microsoft, obscured so that only Windows machines could participate in Windows networks, and then deployed so that Microsoft could charge people Client Access Licenses per machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_%28protocol%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_Access_License

How is that moral? Microsoft didn't do any real development work, they used other people's code without giving anything back, yet they charge people real money for NOTHING! Money for jam. Rip off.



Sigh!

Please explain how what the GPL does is evil or stealing, but actions like that described above regarding Kerberos is not evil. Please explain how the act of taking your code and putting it in a GPL project is any different to taking your code and putting it in a closed source commercial product (apart from the fact that the code is kept open and fair public access to it in perpetuity is guaranteed if it becomes GPL).

You are making no sense at all here.



You really haven't thought this through, have you. Your proposed clause would also stop any commercial company from taking your code and using it in a commercial product released under a EULA. You have defeated yourself.

If you are in fact as clueless as your posts appear to paint you, it is doubtful that anyone would want your code in any event.

(I suspect that you are not clueless, but are merely trying to avoid the main point ... which is answering the question "why don't you require giving code back as a condition in your license, if that is what you actually want to happen"?)

Edited 2007-10-03 03:36

I think you did not get the clause at all. It says publically available version.

What this clause does is prevents anyone to release a public version of this source code with a different license. You can distribute the code as a binary or release the code under the same license.

We want the code back as long as it supports commercialization.

Think of what all companies earn from distributing GPL software combined vs let us say just one company i.e. Microsoft.

Also i believe without commercialization you get substandard products when compared to commercial products:

- Is there a better debugger than SoftIce?
- Is there a better product than VMWARE?
- Is there a better product or more successful product than Oracle or SAP?
- Is there an office suite as good as MS office?
- Is there a better product than Photoshop, Flash etc?
- A user friendly and integrated interface like OSX

The only good GPL software out there is Linux and that too it should feel lucky. When BSD was struggling with legal problems, Linux picked up.

Edited 2007-10-03 06:00

Ok it seems i generalized GPL camp too much due to people like Lemur2 and Archiesteel who probably don't do any coding and just want other people's work for free.

Looks like the real coders are way more honest and respectful of others as they agreed to supply their modification under a BSD compliant license as well.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2902106404.html

Lemur2 - What do you have to say now, huh? In your face i must say.