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 202222
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Bad article
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bad article"
manmist
Member since:
2005-12-18

"Well that explains all the good commercial support and ISV's."


I am sorry to wake you up. But code licensed under the BSD and comparable licenses is used practically everywhere.


Ahem. Think before you answer. Your answer is NO WAY contradicts what I said. If the license is always superior in all circumstances why is the ISV and commercial support for BSD systems lagging so much behind Linux. Why are all the vendors like IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Dell etc working more on Linux? Obviously the license superiority is not a foregone conclusion by any means. The use of code licensed under BSD doesnt change the commercial support aspects of it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Bad article
by Oliver on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Bad article"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Please don't spread FUD because of any real information. Red Hat is a Linux company, HP and IBM are using their own commercial Unices too, Novell is a no-brainer. Yahoo is using BSD, Google, Apple (MacOS X) is using and supporting BSD and so on. Most of the work environments are mixed ones, so one operating system has the hype, the other is working ;)

>The use of code licensed under BSD doesnt change the commercial support aspects of it.

The lack of information doesn't change anything too!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Bad article
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 17:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Bad article"
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"Please don't spread FUD because of any real information"

Nope. It is obvious that BSD commercial and ISV support lags severely behind Linux.

"Yahoo is using BSD, Google, Apple (MacOS X) is using and supporting BSD"

Oh come on. How many well known vendors provide commercial support for FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD. Thats what I am talking about. Not usage.

'The lack of information doesn't change anything too!"

Either understand the thing being asked or stay off the discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Bad article
by macisaac on Tue 16th Jan 2007 22:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Bad article"
macisaac Member since:
2005-08-28

"Yahoo is using BSD, Google, Apple (MacOS X) is using and supporting BSD and so on"

Really? So I can download iTunes or say Google Earth for NetBSD?

Yahoo is using an extremely hacked up and customized version of FreeBSD for their internal servers. Google, (correct me if I'm wrong but I thought) they were using also an extremely hacked up and customized version of _Linux_ for their stuff. Apple smacked together a kernel based on Mach with a FBSD userland, and whatever else from NeXT, etc. Nothing of this sounds like "supporting" to me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Bad article
by Steven on Wed 17th Jan 2007 07:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Bad article"
Steven Member since:
2005-07-20

Ahem. Think before you answer. Your answer is NO WAY contradicts what I said. If the license is always superior in all circumstances why is the ISV and commercial support for BSD systems lagging so much behind Linux. Why are all the vendors like IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat, Dell etc working more on Linux?

"Think before you answer."
HAHAHAHAHAHA... Yes, asking why Red Hat works more on Linux is totally a good argument technique, way to go there...

(hint for the slow: Red Hat = Linux Distribution Company; this is a sure fire way of telling the poster does not really have the slightest idea what they are talking about. Watch for it folks, it's just that easy.)

But, no, really, lets look at this for a second:

Microsoft Windows Copyright:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
...[cut for brevity]...
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

AIX:
This software and documentation is based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution under license from The Regents of the University of California.

HP-UX:
""

TCL/TK:
This software is copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California.

So, lets stop that for a moment and just get down to this: Microsoft, IBM, Sun, HP, Compaq (DEC), Novell, hell, just about every large company I can think of that writes commercial software uses BSD code in their software...

Now, maybe you can define how that is not "commercial" support? Or did you mean "publicly go out of their way to say "hey, we use [insert some name for free publicity by riding a media buzzword here] in our computers and we give back to the community!" Cause, well, if that's what you mean, it's not only a bad scale to use for commercial support, it shows nothing but inane marketing attempts. Attempts that you seem to have fallen into completely...

Companies that commercially support BSD in a limited form (in no particular order, just a short list, I don't feel like reading all the names, these are just things that caught my eye): The US Government (DARPA), Yahoo, Hudson River Trading Inc, Google, SPS Studios, Vivonet Incorporated, Linux-Consulting.com, The Socialist Party of the Netherlands, Graphical Data Capture Ltd, PARSE Software Devices, Collaborative Fusion, Inc, Sun, Natural Fit Supplements, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Hell, I could make this list 14 pages long pretty easily... You see, the difference between Linux and BSD projects is that Free/Net/OpenBSD are not buzzwords, no CTOs perk their ears up when they hear them, nobody really knows about them outside of the technical branch of the world, so there's nothing to gain by spouting "WE SUPPORT BSD! OH YEAH! YEAH BUDDY! WE ARE TOTALLY COMMUNITY PLAYERS! BUY OUR STUFF, BECAUSE WE CARE!"

See, that's the way marketing works.

The fact that hundreds of people and organizations directly support the BSD systems through monetary donations, hardware donations, and actual coding won't come up because they can't get anything out of telling people about it. That aside, the fact that nearly every software company in the world uses BSD code is, in itself, support. They take the code, they modify it, and the world gets to use products that otherwise either wouldn't exist, would be poorer quality, or would just take years longer to develop.

That aside, a great many of the companies who have borrowed BSD code, while not wanting to put their own changes out to the public, have gone on to make monetary donations to the projects.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but I see "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." as "commercial support" every damn time I come across it.

Edited 2007-01-17 07:18

Reply Parent Score: 2