"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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
Member since:2006-09-21
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.
I disagree about the weight you give to the article. They are merely educated opinions based off of Australian law , and neither US nor Australia have had any hard rulings on such matters.
But again, for all practical purposes, how does it change anything? The ONLY difference it makes to maintain the BSD license required for distribution, are that you maintain the copyright notice and that the owners and contributors of that BSDL code cannot be named for endorsement without their consent. Yet these are inconsequential for those who are already using BSD code today because they are not violating any of those terms. MS still maintains copyright notices (ok, so you'll have to look hard) and they aren't using the authors of the BSDL works in promoting their products either.
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.