"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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but by an old and outdated BSD license with an advertising clause that everyone today agrees was a bad idea to begin with.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:2006-01-22
"I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the problem isn't caused by the GPL, but by an old and outdated BSD license with an advertising clause that everyone today agrees was a bad idea to begin with.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."
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. So FreeBSDians seem to be
1. Totally egoists believing they do not introduce bugs
2. Totally idiots believing that they have all the manpower to solve their problems.
3. Totally dangerous by allowing bugs in their software to reach their users when they have an opportunity to solve it and for all.
4. Totally self-contradictory by advertising Open Source and taking precautions to impede it.
5. Totally liars by taking all our work and donating to big companies.
And please don't use the ridiculous argument that the developers know about BSD licence, it is morality in question here and if you are not moral to admit it,
there is always fdisk. !period!
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:
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