OSNews

OpenBSD probably were. No one else is paranoid enough to constantly audit their code like they do. They audit for security, and they audit for licensing.

They appear to be planning to systemically remove GPL code from their base, so they can relicense the entire thing under an ISC license.

It has been known for quite a while: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211765

"Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

X.org has always been MIT/BSD licensed, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

Noone including him self knows what he's yapping about. He has a problem with the bsd's and really likes to rant about them every chance he gets. The funny part is that you if ask him about sources for his claims he failes to deliever.

Well............... X.org is certainly one example. The number one reason why more permissive licenses like MIT, BSD or even the LGPL tend to be used is because of linking to proprietary software. There really isn't any other reason you can come up with. People are certainly free to do that, but the net effect is that developers using your code tend to go off and write their own code somewhere else that could be used to move the project much further forwards. Would we really have the number of drivers we do in the Linux kernel without the GPL?

All you have to do is look around at various 'open source' projects, look at their main licenses and look at how much code is going into them. GPLed projects tend to have quite a bit more code going into them versus their more liberally licensed counterparts, and they, like X.org, are tending to struggle to attract code contributions and long-term contributors. It's a snowball effect.

[[The number one reason why more permissive licenses like MIT, BSD or even the LGPL tend to be used is because of linking to proprietary software. There really isn't any other reason you can come up with.]]

There is another reason: compatibility, the more permissive license you use, the less license incompatibility mess there is (GPLv2 isn't even compatible with GPLv3!).

As for the proprietarisation of MIT/BSD code, this doesn't always happen: the OpenBSD and FreeBSD OS seems to have a working ecosystem, sure they're less popular than Linux, but is the license the reason?

It's not possible to isolate the reason: The Hurd was a failure even though it is GPL licensed..

GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3.

Only if the GPLv2 license carries the "or later" clause. For example, the Linux kernel does not, therefore, it is not compatible.

The hurd is not a failure , it's not BSD's , people can still develop it.

Huh? Both the BSD's and HURD can still be developed. HURD is not as successful as Linux nor the main BSD OS's.

No , otherwise the kernel itself would stop working due to incompatible licensing.



No , A large amount of BSD derivative are now closed ( as in product with one company supporting them ) and bankrupt and no one can use the code nor the hardware modifications there.



See it's not a failure , if it's not as successful don't mean it had no success accomplishing it's goals.



Without HURD you don't have Linux ...



No idea what your talking about by "Main BSD OS."

BSD's exist today because in the past they where dependant on the GNU tools that where created due to HURD who's goal was to create real Free Software...

BSD was created with the goald to Free UNIX and replace it with Free software. It is a failure because it failed that goal and Thieve now outnumber the real BSD's.

License compatibility is a fairly weak argument for using a license, and it isn't going to make your software better or encourage more contributions.


Given that BSD in one form or another has been around for longer than Linux, you'd have to say yes. The GPL makes everyone contributing to the Linux kernel know that they're on a level playing field. If you contribute something then even your competitors need to contribute back if they want to have any influence. This takes any political guesswork out of contributing. Well, most of it anyway.

With a BSD (or more 'liberal') licensed kernel is a hardware manufacturer going to work on open source drivers, or contribute in a big way to major kernel subsystems when a rival can just plug in a proprietary extension and sell that? I very much doubt it. Without the GPL it is very much a "Who is going to blink first?" scenario.


Hurd has become unnecessary because people were already using something else at its inception and it isn't inherently better in any way to anything else. No license can help you with that.

I wouldn't use an allquantified expression ("all") here because this sentence can be proven wrong with only one counter-example. :-)

But in principle you're right. The BSD-type licenses are often criticised to be "rape me licenses". This can be seen as theft when, for example, a vendor takes BSD licensed code, fiddles with it a while, and then sells it in his procucts. But that's another kind of freedom, if I may see it that way: The freedom to re-use the code in *any* way that's imaginable. Another completely valid point of view is that it may not be acceptable to "unfree" free software, that there has to be a restriction in what you may do with the code in order to protect its freedom.



Depends on the definition...

Erm... no. Forgive me this introduction to expression logic. You wrote:

"Same thing can be said of all the entire BSD/MIT. The code is being used do , but inside proprietary closed code inside commercial , but non-inclusives , non sharing , non contributing back , projects."

All of them, this is { x1, x2, x3, ..., xn } You claim some statement to be true for all of them in general. So if I find one xi and state that your claim is not true for this one, your whole all-quantified ("for all") statement is false. One exception makes the whole statement false. w(x1, x2, x3, ..., xn) == 1 only if w(x1) == 1 and w(x2) == 1 and ... and w(xn) == 1. This is called a conjunctive expression ("and expression").

This means: If I can name only one single project / piece of software that has been licensed under a BSD or MIT like license that has not been part of a "un-freeing" process (e, g. enclosure in a proprietary product), your statement would been proven wrong.

This could easily be achieved if I write a piece of software, something simple, release it under BSDL, put it on an FTP server and voila, done. It doesn't make sense that this particular piece of software will be "un-freed" within the next 10 minutes. Industry espionage isn't that fast, I hope. :-)

But I think that you said the truth for most of the BSD or MIT licensed software. Many parts of them are found in another "packaging" without any contribution back, without mentioning.



Allthough this is right, your comparison fails to fit the topic. It's true that free software is still "un-freed" in several projects (mostly of proprietary nature), and just because some vendors claim they invented everything on their own, it doesn't become true.



It's possible to see it that way, but try this approach: If I say: "You may hold me captive and I'll work for you as a slave, this I do grant you by now", could I complain if you put me into the kitchen and let me wash your dishes all day long? Okay, quite a bad example, but you're getting the idea, right? If some software is let to the public with the explicite permission to re-use it in a non-free way, the authors of this software can't complain because they gave this permission. For example, if I don't want my software to be stolen by a big company and then be sold in their products, I won't choose the BSD license.



Yes, I do see this the same way. With any modification, a new original appears with the same rights as its "parent". For example, it's not valid to scrap licensing terms from the source code, or maybe the names and signatures of the original authors, and then put in your own name and sell the whole stuff as your invention.



Politics is for corrupt dummies. :-)

Because it doesnt fit into your logic?



So your the only one who are allowed to redefine logic?



Who cares about "free" software besides fsf nuts like your self?



So according to your "logic" copyleft is taking bsd licensed code and call it your own invention?



Why even trust the fsf in the first place?

uh... it's very hard to do a discussion with you because you're mixing up terminology, changing quotes and seem to be not accessible by common sense, allthough your opinion is understandable in parts, and I think I quite share it.

Ever hered of expression logic, the science of logic, the treatment of expressions?

w(x1 ^ x2) == 1 «---» w(x1) == 1 ^ w(x2) == 1

Know what's so great about logic? It fits everywhere and is independant from individual opinions. There are many laws in logic that are universal. One of them is the conclusion of a conjunction of arguments. If a collection of statements is claimed to be true at general, but one of the arguments is false, the whole statement (the generalizing one) is false.

A(xi) == 1 «---» xi == 1 Ai




You can read about the laws of logic in nearly every introduction class to any kind of science. I'm not redefining anything. It's not about logical or illogical, it's about right or wrong. And if you claim something for all things, but it's not true for one of these things, your claim is wrong. Another point worth mentioning is that if you can't completely define "all" (because software is evolving, there's something new every day so "all" would grow and grow), it becomes significantly harder to proof something for a changing situation.

But you're not proving, you're claiming.



It is, if it's a valid counter-example which, as I could prove, proves your claim wrong.



Why do you say "ends up"? When does it do that? Now? Or in a certain amount of time?

At the moment, there's free BSD code around, such as it is in the various BSD operating systems (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc.). Parallel to this, code from these operating systems exists in closed products, I completely agree with you. But this doesn't make the free code disappear.



No, you would have to show it in order to prove your claim right. You would have to find any piece of code from all the software that has been licensed under BSD, MIT or similar license and compare it to the (still available) free code where it initially came from. Good luck.



Don't assume it. Of course it's valid to see some kind of transition within the code, O -> C -> C' -> C''. But you are the one who would have to unfold every C'' code and reveal that is is, in any kind, based upon O code.




Yes it does, and you know it. It proves you're wrong. (See what I did? I assumed and implied and argumented the same way you usually seem to do.)



No. If I give explicite permission for somebody to do something, I can not complain. The BSD license says in principle that it's okay to take the code and do anything to it, without the obligation to contribute anything back. Well, that may be seen as a "rape me license", but if the originators of the code are comfortable with this setting, it's their right to do so.

Coming back to the example. Your objection that something (here: slavery) is to be considered illegal doesn't change the principle that if something is permitted, it's okay to do so. (Aside this, I don't want to say that slavery is legal and okay, just in case you don't getting this.) Maybe the intentions of "rapers" (of source code) is worth having a look at. Big companies stealing ideas and code and selling the stuff "they invented" is bad, and it's bad for the authors of the original source code or the inventors of the ideas. So if you simply don't want such case ob "abuse", better not release your code under BSDL / MIT or something similar.

So if I don't want you to have me wash dishes all day long, I'd better don't give you my permission to use my labour force for free.

You see, my example wasa not that bad at all. :-)



Hey, stop this!!! Stop cutting out significant parts of my statement to turn them into something opposite. This is impolite and and furthermore it doesn't make sense in any discussion.

As I could read from your statements, you consider BSD like licenses to enslave code. Do you think code in itself has rights, or would you say the authors of the code have rights? Using free code to create closed products is, in my opinion, a break of the rights the original authors have (they get it by creating the code), except, of course, they explicitely permit it.




Sorry, I'm unable to understand the meaning of these words...




Seen the ":-)"? Of course you're right. But the access to decisions is very limited for "everyone", and common interest doesn't seem to grow on this topic. Maybe we will regret this some day...



Hmm... a valid point of view. Internationally differing law makes the situation more complicated. But as I mentioned before, next to the closed / proprietary software the free one still will exist. Just because someone sells a product based upon OpenBSD doesn't make OpenBSD go away, as an example.

Errr, as much as I think Moulinneuf ties himself in knots and doesn't express himself well, this is wrong on two levels:

1. This is an English language discussion and arguing about logic over one word is off on a massive tangent that is totally orthogonal to the main discussion. If you argue like this in real life then you have other 'issues'.

2. Your logic is flawed in this case with your fixation on the use of one word. The fact that some code in any BSD licensed project has not been used in a closed off proprietary piece of software does not preclude and rule out its use in one in the future - and that applies to *all* such licensed projects. That's the point. Vaguely arguing otherwise is fruitless in this 'discussion' as it is what the license in question allows and not what people have or have not decided to do with the code.

I don't think that scenario could reasonably be considered theft.

Let's say I put a bunch of junk out on the curb and put up a "Free for the taking" sign. Then let's say someone takes me up on the offer, fixes up some of the junk, and sells it for a profit. Would I have any valid reason to view that as "theft" and get upset? Or would that be my own damn fault for not choosing more restrictive terms in the first place?

Your analogy is already hopelessly-flawed before the end of your first sentence (and I use "sentence" in the loosest possible sense). I'll try to spell it out clearly enough that even you should be able to follow.

You've described a situation where the original owner/author is deprived of their property in violation of the terms under which they made that property available. That's not comparable to using BSD-licensed code without contributing changes back to the author.



Wow. Just... wow. Even after 10 years on Usenet, that has to be the most laughably-inept attempt at an insult that I have ever read. Congratulations, you have managed to surpass even the knuckle-draggers of rec.sports.pro-wrestling and the gas-huffing inhabitants of alt.pizza.delivery.drivers.

Oh, and since I'm nice guy, here's a free lesson in 6th grade-level English.

Your = an adjective indicating possession.
You're = a contraction of the words "you" and "are."

Hope this helps!

"Something similar would be to put a lawnmower on your lawn put a sign "free for usage , can upgrade it if you like , use your own gas."

Then you have StephenBeDoper the Thief come along and claim it as is property because he painted it blue and upgraded the motor and put in expensive gas in it.

You try to get it back to mowe your lawn and he say I can rent it to you , or you can buy it from me or you can't use it.
"

Inherently flawed. In the case of BSD licensed code, taking it, improving it and making it poprietary does not deprive the original author of his original code. You know this. You are being intellectually dishonest* and it is sickening.

*or just dumb. Less sickening, but sad

I don't think that scenario could reasonably be considered theft. "

Yes, I agree with that. In maximum case, it could be seen as immoral to profit from other ones work.



Completely correct, but you don't want to compare BSDL code to junk, do you? :-) In fact, the source code is something people had worked on, put their time and labour force into it. But coming back to your analogy, maybe you built some electronics on yourself when you got some money as a present (time + labour force + donations), and then consider the the electronics, defective or not, to be junk and to be taken up by anyone, well, that won't be a situation of theft.

The term theft could eventually be applied to "intellectual property"... maybe.

I don't think that scenario could reasonably be considered theft. "

Yes, I agree with that. In maximum case, it could be seen as immoral to profit from other ones work. [/q]

I think it hinges on whether or not one views the upstream contribution of changes as an obligation.

Personally, I see it as something that's desirable (rather than requisite) and certainly should be done whenever possible. But I don't see it as immoral to use software in a way that is clearly-permitted by the license under which the software is released.

It's an odd situation when we have overzealous GPL advocates, like Moulinneuf, raising a hue and cry about proprietary use of BSD code - when it apparently doesn't bother the actual authors of said code. It seems like some sort of bizarre martyr complex-by-proxy.





True enough, wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that everyone in Canada is as vitriolic as Moulinneuf



Looking back, my analogy probably would have worked better if it had referred to blueprints / schematics for physical devices (rather than tangible physical objects).

Man, that was downright offensive.

Even if everything you said was true, you are comparing using a free software project without contributing back to killing children. I knew free software nuts got zealous sometimes, but that is just twisted.

Perish the thought! I can't imagine how anyone would get the idea that you aren't terribly well-acquainted with reality.

...

On a totally unrelated topic, please tell us more about how using the BSD license is comparable to killing children.

You know, I honestly can't tell if you're just feigning ignorance - or if you truly are that obtuse.

If it *is* willful ignorance, then I must applaud your persistence (if nothing else).



Of course those aren't your words. They're not nearly rambling or long-winded enough and they aren't riddled with spelling & grammatical errors.

Don't worry, you evidently have plenty of hobby-horses to make up for it.

BTW, if "hobby-horse" is too-obscure a reference for you, please feel free to go into your "jilted teenage girl" act again (you know, where you follow me around for a week and obsessively reply to my every post).



You know, you could have just written "I know you are, but what am I?" - it wouldn't be any less-laughable



...are you trying out an impression of Randy from My Name is Earl, or just demonstrating your ability to grasp of the obvious?



Uh... so you dictate all your posts letter-by-letter? Or do you mean that you're hookid on fonix?



In the words of Samuel L. Jackson:

"ENGLISH, MOTHERF****R - DO. YOU. SPEAK. IT?!?!?"

Hope this helps!

No, Moulinneuf, your words.

You directly compare "There is nothing wrong with the Free Software Foundation celebrating making open source licensing." with "There is no problem with milk producer who distribute poisonned milk into there products , other people childrens dying is not a problem"

Not a good thing when Moulinneuf notices a BSD article.

Moulinneuf,

Although I prefer a GPL* license, because, after all, if someone use code I wrote and intent to sell/distribute it they must give the "improvements" back, I would ask you to refrain to be so critical about BSD/MIT like licenses, even if just to show respect to the developers that expended their time and had a high commendable attitude to publish their code for free.

Also, we don't know the reasons the developers had to choose a particular license, but I suppose they did after a careful analysis of the other options. You, probably, don't think that big projects just pick a license from random, right?

I second that. I prefer the GPL license as well, but if someone wants to code in BSD then there is nothing wrong with that. Your arguments are divisive for no reason that I can see, other than wanting to attract attention.

The BSDs are older than GNU\Linux, and lots of stuff used in Linux comes from BSD, like OpenSSH and OpenSSL.

The BSDs use their own CLI tools, their own kernel, their own filesystem (though it can use others.)

XFree86 and Xorg is originally derived from code that ran on UNIX, and almost all unix like OSs use it, so they didn't steal that.

I fail to see how they are thieves.

But BSD does use their own CLI userland.

And just because they allow unfettered sharing themselves do not make them thieves themselves. That's like assuming people who donate food to the foodbank steal food.

Edited 2009-01-09 15:10 UTC

BSD stands for Berkley Software Distribution, it COMES FROM BERKLEY, so does Sun Microsystems. It does not use Unix code, it use to, but all UNIX code was removed for 386BSD. Do your research.

Linux has also been accused of stealing UNIX's code, and there is no evidence of that either. Do you really think that just because you say it, it makes it true?

If you don't like the license, that's fine, but in my opinion, it's more free than the GPL. Calling people thieves when they are not is wrong, but you do it all the time. What other people do with BSD licensed code is not their responsibility, But the BSDs themselves don't steal code, there is no UNIX code in BSD anymore, and that's that.

I refuse to continue this thread, you're making my head hurt.

"Saying there is no UNIX code in BSD is a lie. "

No. I may be incorrect (but I am not)
There is no more UNIX(illegal) code in BSD then there is in Linux. If you have proof, PROVE IT.

Otherwise, just stop. You're just making yourself look bad.

Seriously, you need help. Anyone who knows the history of the BSD's knows that BSD developers contributied large volumes code to improve AT&T Unix. When an issue came up in court & code was removed, the remaining codebase from BSD 4.4-lite is what was determined to belong to BSD. This is what the court determined. Therefore, by legal definition, it's not stolen. The court declared BSD the owner of the codebase in BSD 4.4-lite. This is the codebase that all modern BSD's are based off of. More things have come out of BSD & used in other systems, than vice versa. Hell, almost every OS alive is using a derivative of the BSD networking stack. Most modern *Nix derivatives are using XWindow servers that originated with BSD/MIT licenses. These things were around before GPL, LGPL, & some of the other licenses. So, who's stealing from who???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi





"USL v. BSDi was a lawsuit brought in the United States in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to UNIX. The case was settled out of court in 1993 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with USL and BSDi agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), which would later develop into a range of BSD distributions, each tuned to its own specific audience's strengths and markets."

Now, if you'll notice, the judge didn't think that USL had any rights to the property. Basically, USL didn't have a leg to stand on as far as court cases go. So, USL settled out of court, which was basically the only logical choice. As a result of the settlement, the remaining code that was released as BSD-4.4-lite is wholly the property of BSDi. This has been argued & settled. Legally, the code wasn't stolen. If the code wasn't stolen, then there were no thieves there.

There's no doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. The history of ALL of the BSD branches are common knowledge. Also, BSD has it's own toolchain for code development. The GNU toolchain is mostly provided to allow the use & development of Linux apps. Now, where's your proof???

NO it's saying that all BSD's are accomplice in stealing all the food given to the foddbanks when their thieves want to make a profit a the expanse of the food banks and not share anything back by rebranding or repackaging the product given to the foddbanks.

" [/q]

The BSD's give to all as much as the others want. If you want to use food as an example--I think tangible item comparisons do not work with code, imagine that the BSD's are a source of infinite food. Yes, others can rebrand and/or repackage it. However, consumers do not have to partake of this; they can get their food for free.

That's the problem *imagination* , in reality BSD is finite in it's ressources , just like a foodbanks is.

Seriously, there's something very wrong with you. Seek treatment immediately, and get on some meds.

Although I am partial to copyleft licenses, in general, I also respect the members of our FOSS community who prefer more permissive licensing, or whose situation makes a more permissive license a more logical choice for them. And I must say that I find the irony of a GPL advocate using the word "thieves" in connection with the BSD community to be beyond my ability to adequately express.

And isn't that post against the OSNews ToS or something? It seems to me that many (most) of Moulinneuf's posts are of questionable intent and value.

Edited 2009-01-10 02:37 UTC

FOSS means Free and Open Source Software , some people have a tendancy to forget the meaning of those words. Like you just did. But then you don't see the insult in saying people who close BSD's to all other but themself are part of a community who try to free and Open Source code.



I read that as prefer to invent new *lying* terminology that sound like they are calling closing code more permissive then letting people use , modify , resale , study it.

more faster then fast ...
more taller then tall ...
more darker then dark ...

More permissive then permissive , but with closing as an acceptable option in a Free and Open Source Software solution ... It make no sense to any sane person.



Is of there own doing ...



Too bad you don't have word or what's that thing , oh yes reality and more importantly proof , to back up your insinuation , fabulations and lies that GPL people stole anyone codes. Even more from BSD's ...

Because then that would have been taken to court , since you can't defeat us in code and in action and that we have the moral high ground due to our action , we must be according to people like you smeared in names calling and take it without any reply at all time , well I guess for every zealots , drug insinuation , you need to see a shrink , and other loathing , I must accept and say thanks ? Because it's my so called religion according to people like you ...

The funny thing is my comment was well within the TOS and acceptable , to the extreme surely , but then I unleashed the flury of insult that is often the tolerated breakage of said TOS when I am the author of a comment and of name calling for saying what I know is right.

BTW this post was written as a real BSD user's and real BSD advocate , you know the old kind that had this utopia of freeing UNIX. What can I say your limited views and false concept can only mention what it knows.
That all who disagree with BSD thieves must absolutely be GNU or GPL something.

I hate to break up the obvious to you but the moderator/editor/owner may not like me that much , they may not like my tone and a lot of the words I use , but they generally don't disagree with the general idea behind what I express. Also when they really disagree I have never seen them be mute about it , or not act upon it.

This will be my last post under this article.

Too bad you don't have word or what's that thing , oh yes reality and more importantly proof , to back up your insinuation , fabulations and lies that GPL people stole anyone codes. Even more from BSD's ... "

Because BSD code allows itself to be taken and used, many GPL projects have ended up "stealing" it. What seems to happen is that a piece of BSD code ends up in a GPL project and acquires improvements. All those improvements are under the GPL unless specifically noted, and the code becomes effectively impossible to bring back to the BSD project.

This is no different from BSD code being "stolen" into proprietary, hidden code, but it is more dangerous to the BSD original. It is dangerous because the improved GPL version is open source, it would be very easy to argue "derivative work" contamination if those GPL'ed improvements appeared back in the original BSD code base, even if rewritten.

I believe it is quite rude to not give improvements back to an open source project under the original license. I believe it is especially rude if you are distributing the code under another open source license. I believe it is extra especially rude and hypocritical when the new open source license would explicitly prohibit doing the same thing with its own code.

Many code authors agree with me and when this sort of thing happens by accident and is discovered, the patches are often recontributed by their author to the original BSD code.

I'm afraid it is different, because it is the BSD license that says that you can do that and not the GPL.


How do you propose that is done if you have a license like various BSD ones that say that you don't have to? There is only one way to compel source code improvements to go back into a project (it's highly, highly, highly ironic that you are arguing that by the way), and that is to use a license like the GPL otherwise it is tough luck.


Once again, that's not the GPL's problem. The BSD licenses effectively say that that can occur.


Do they? Who?


Yer. What's the problem?

There's a reason why most of his comments got voted down. It's not ignorance or arbitraryness. Even if you agree with him, he disagrees (even if he really has a point), just as it would be a reflex reaction... :-(