Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Jan 2007 18:08 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives "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."
Thread beginning with comment 199574
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GPL...
by wargum on Mon 8th Jan 2007 18:46 UTC
wargum
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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: GPL...
by sbergman27 on Mon 8th Jan 2007 18:55 in reply to "GPL..."
sbergman27 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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: GPL...
by ralph on Mon 8th Jan 2007 19:05 in reply to "RE: GPL..."
ralph Member since:
2005-07-10

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the problem isn't caused by the GPL, but by an old and outdated BSD license with an advertising clause that everyone today agrees was a bad idea to begin with.

Nice try at spreading FUD though.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL...
by elsewhere on Mon 8th Jan 2007 19:38 in reply to "RE: GPL..."
elsewhere 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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL...
by garymax on Mon 8th Jan 2007 20:28 in reply to "RE: GPL..."
garymax Member since:
2006-01-23

But at least Richard Stallman doesn't throw chairs...but then again. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: GPL...
by cyclops on Mon 8th Jan 2007 19:22 in reply to "GPL..."
cyclops 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

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL...
by wargum on Mon 8th Jan 2007 20:08 in reply to "RE: GPL..."
wargum 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...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: GPL...
by Soulbender on Tue 9th Jan 2007 01:40 in reply to "GPL..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"...is the problem, again and again. "

Perhaps but that has NOTHING to do with this news item. I'm no fan of the GPL either but I also dont want to see every damn thread take a turn for the worse into a license flamewar.

Reply Parent Score: 3