SFLC has released a code analysis of the infamous ath5k driver in Linux. SFLC has also - in the aftermath of the OpenBSD-Team vs. Linux-Team 'License Flame War' - released a paper on what 'copyrightable' means, as well as one on proper usage of non-GPL'ed code in GPL'ed projects. All as part of guidance for developers wishing to use permissive licensed code in GPL'ed projects.
Groklaw naturally also has a take on this.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-23
>>I guess getting people to use the code isn't what the BSD license is all about after all.
This is about ethics, not law.
Driver 1 is licensed under BSD. Somebody converts to GPL. We now have 2 almost identical codebases, with 2 licenses. One is BSD, the other is GPL.
GPL or BSD, both are open source. GPL projects can use BSD code. BSD projects can not use GPL code.
Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.
Code contributions made under the GPL licensebenefits the GPL project only.
"Thank you for working your ass off for the last years. We take it from here. KTHX."
Member since:2005-10-13
This is about ethics, not law.
I agree, that's what I was talking about as I really haven't followed the situation closely enough to know what the legal situation is.
Driver 1 is licensed under BSD. Somebody converts to GPL. We now have 2 almost identical codebases, with 2 licenses. One is BSD, the other is GPL.
GPL or BSD, both are open source. GPL projects can use BSD code. BSD projects can not use GPL code.
You forgot about the other someone else who integrates Driver 1 into their proprietary product, making 3 almost identical codebases. No one can use the third project except for the proprietary vendor, who says "Thank you for working your ass off for the last years. We take it from here. KTHX."
None of the BSD people seem to have any problem with this, and in fact they seem to advertise it as a success story - they're happy that other people are able to use their code. So it seems like a strange little disconnect that they have such a problem with the GPL version, although I'll admit the situations aren't exactly the same.
Edited 2007-09-30 18:43
Member since:2006-03-12
"Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.
Code contributions made under the GPL license benefits the GPL project only."
...you forgot one main point if code is incorporated into GPL licensed code, the original BSD is still available. In fact the BSD users can still get the GPL freedoms from the code, benefits not granted under the very same code tied up into a binary product, and these are things helpful to BSD projects. The second point that cannot be understated as why BSD users shouldn't force there morals on GPL coders as opposed to binary coders. Especially if your asking them to forgo copyleft part of the license they have chosen GPL for.
Developers who use code in a binary product benefits themselves. Why should GPL coders compromise their morals to have them abused by others. The very thing you are objecting to.
You have to think that if the argument is going to be on moral grounds those who complain clearly need a license that say enforces this sharing say...GPL. The irony is clearly lost on you.
Member since:2005-07-11
GPL projects can use BSD code. BSD projects can not use GPL code.
Of course BSD projects can use GPL'ed code. They can even modify that GPL'ed code and they can distribute the GPL'ed code with the modifications they've made. The GPL allows all this. It's just that the modified code also needs to be GPL'ed and BSD projects don't generally want to ship any code they've written under the GPL.
But there's a big difference between a case where you don't want to use some code and another case where you're not allowed to use it. BSD projects are allowed use GPL'ed code but they just don't want to. So it's not really the GPL restricting BSD projects, it's rather the BSD projects restricting themselves (and then blaming the GPL).
Member since:2005-07-06
This is about ethics, not law.
Code contributions made under the BSD license benefits both projects.
Code contributions made under the GPL licensebenefits the GPL project only.
"Thank you for working your ass off for the last years. We take it from here. KTHX."
I'm sorry, but that's just exceptionally silly, and I cannot help but laugh at that. That's the whole point of a BSD style license, and now you're complaining about it?! Do people complain when Apple or anyone else walks in and says "Right, we'll take it from here", and gives no code back from their own fork? You've also just described the very scenario as to why the GPL was created in the first place, and certainly the number one reason why Linus Torvalds wanted to use it for Linux!
I also see no reason why a mutually convenient arrangement from both OpenBSD and GPL/Linux parties could not be worked out, whereby Linux contributors could also contribute code under the BSD license and then license code under the GPL for Linux, as has been done so far anyway.
But, no. Theo doesn't want to talk about co-operation, but wants to throw hissy fits in retaliation because of the license that he and his fellow developers have all agreed on.
Edited 2007-09-30 20:49
Member since:
2005-10-13
Even without knowing the actual legal points of who was right and who was wrong, it always seemed very strange to me that the BSD folks were throwing fits about this situation. I had always assumed that the entire point of contributing to BSD licensed code was to get it used by as many people as possible, regardless of the license other people used, which is why they allowed proprietary developers to use it without any restrictions. So it seemed odd that they would complain about the GPL which still actually distributed all the changes that had been made and not proprietary vendors who hid all their changes to the code. I guess getting people to use the code isn't what the BSD license is all about after all.