"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:2005-06-29
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but by an old and outdated BSD license with an advertising clause that everyone today agrees was a bad idea to begin with.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: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: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:2005-07-24
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:
2005-07-10
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.