Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:08 UTC, submitted by RJ
GNU, GPL, Open Source "We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."
Thread beginning with comment 202186
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
manmist
Member since:
2005-12-18

Obviously you want to flame the lawyer with a legal opinion that points out a few things that might be different from what is commonly known.

Meanwhile all the BSD's are choke full of GPL'ed software starting with the GPL'ed GCC compiler. Yes, there are BSD licensed compliers but they arent used by these BSD flavors, so let's not turn this into a GPL vs BSD argument. Note that the paper doesnt get into this sillyness.

Edited 2007-01-16 15:34

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by Meor on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:37 in reply to "RE: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
Meor Member since:
2006-09-29

If you didn't want a flame was you should learn to bite your tounge.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by Oliver on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:41 in reply to "RE: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>all the BSD's are choke full of GPL'ed software starting with the GPL'ed GCC compiler.

The system itself works without any GPL code (and it's more than just a kernel), it isn't possible at all because of the GPL.
Most of the GPL software resides in ports and gcc is an addon, it's not essential for a running system. So yes, it's not about GPL vs BSD, but these are essential details!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:48 in reply to "RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"The system itself works without any GPL code (and it's more than just a kernel), it isn't possible at all because of the GPL. "

Yes. You can put up a kernel and base tools without any GPL'ed code. Works" != Usable for the significant portion of users though. We need more software out there and the large majority is licensed under GPL. Look at http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html for a detailed analysis.

" So yes, it's not about GPL vs BSD, but these are essential details!"

BSD folks like Theo are so much fanatical that they wont allow GPL'ed software into the base system and not even Apache 2 because he considers it non-free but the whole system is compiled with GCC anyway. Linux distributions are however happy to put BSD code in their system.

Same for NetBSD and FreeBSD. So yes, you require GCC to even bootstrap the system. Try compiling it with any other compiler and watch it all break down.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by jimveta on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:53 in reply to "RE: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
jimveta Member since:
2006-09-21

Meanwhile all the BSD's are choke full of GPL'ed software starting with the GPL'ed GCC compiler. Yes, there are BSD licensed compliers but they arent used by these BSD flavors, so let's not turn this into a GPL vs BSD argument. Note that the paper doesnt get into this sillyness.

The BSD OS's simply include GPL software to execute. The kernel and core system do not and could not use any GPL code. All the while GPL software can consume and create derivative works using BSD code, but BSD code can't (and still remain BSD that is).

Your jab at how "the BSD's are choke full of GPL'ed software" itself is an implied GPL vs BSD argument. And the sillyness that the paper *does* get into is essentially trying to make the BSDL more GPL-like.

But even when you say that any BSD derived works must be covered under the BSD license, that still does not change anything since as deadlinkous stated, the license itself does not require source distribution.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:02 in reply to "RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"
The BSD OS's simply include GPL software to execute. The kernel and core system do not and could not use any GPL code. All the while GPL software can consume and create derivative works using BSD code, but BSD code can't (and still remain BSD that is). "

Well if you want only BSD code, you cant use any other licensed code. That is a no brainer to conclude. You can mix and match both of them (assuming it is the 3 clause BSD license).

"
Your jab at how "the BSD's are choke full of GPL'ed software" itself is an implied GPL vs BSD argument"

Of course not. It is just pointing out the irony of name calling in the OP's "GPL freaks"

"And the sillyness that the paper *does* get into is essentially trying to make the BSDL more GPL-like. "

Nope. It does point out a very valid legal opinion by a lawyer that you cant simply relicense any code licensed under BSD as many people do assume.

"But even when you say that any BSD derived works must be covered under the BSD license, that still does not change anything since as deadlinkous stated, the license itself does not require source distribution."

Obviously the ability to relicense is a critical difference between MIT X11 license and the BSD licenses. You might want to actually consider that for sometime before proclaiming that it doesnt change anything.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by Babi Asu on Tue 16th Jan 2007 20:58 in reply to "RE: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
Babi Asu Member since:
2006-02-11

GCC compiled programs are not infected with GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 1