Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 15:46 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Legal OpenBSD project creator Theo de Raadt detailed his concerns regarding BSD-licensed code and Dual-BSD/GPL-licensed code being re-licensed under only the GPL (as previously discussed): "Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to... Break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact." Regarding the concern that the BSD license allows companies to steal code, Theo reflected: "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope - the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out."
Thread beginning with comment 267859
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
My take.
by w00dst0ck on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 16:53 UTC
w00dst0ck
Member since:
2006-02-01

Ok, I understand how both the GPL and the BSD licenses work and that when choosing either one of these licenses you should be fully aware of what people can, can't, and will do with your code.

I think what Theo is saying and I fully agree with him, that it doesn't have to boil down to the license in question but more a moral stance of keeping things open and compatible between all of the FOSS community (BSD and GNU/Linux).

Maybe I don't fully understand both but there should be a way that either licenses can play nicely together, from a users perspective and from a developers perspective, to keep things flowing between everyone without locking each other out. After all, we're all technically on the same page when it comes to wanting to create the best fully open OS.

What people seem to think though is, just because the BSD license allows proprietary closure of source code and no legal obligation of releasing the newly modified source with the binaries doesn't exactly mean the BSD people want this sort of thing to happen, they have just chosen a license that, in their minds, gives you that freedom if you choose to do so. Which is why people say the BSD license gives you more freedom...

Reply Score: 3

RE: My take.
by boots on Mon 3rd Sep 2007 07:26 in reply to "My take."
boots Member since:
2005-07-06

The BSD expresses no sense of morality. It says simple, "do as thou wilt". That is not a moral statement -- it is a free-for-all. The GPL says, "share-and-share-alike". That IS a moral statement. Theo is completely talking out of his ass on this one. On the one hand, he seems to want to stay committed to the BSD (perhaps out of sheer inertia and pg-headedness) but on the other he is crying for the types of protection that the GPL ensures. Case closed -- he made the wrong ethical choice in terms of licensing -- he just isn't capable of admitting it. RMS was right all along.

Reply Parent Score: 1