Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jun 2010 22:36 UTC
Google When Google first unveiled its WebM project, there were quite some concerns over its license. This license was incompatible with version 2 and 3 of the GPL, and was effectively a new license, causing unnecessary confusion. Google has now cleared everything up by switching to a regular BSD license.
Thread beginning with comment 428466
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

How did they undermine kerberos? By adding their own proprietary extensions?

Yes, because those extensions made their kerberos implementation incompatible with the standard implementation in unix. It's not a perfect analogy to what lemur2 claimed would be impossible, but a pretty close match.

If that same software was GPLd they wouldn't be using it at all. Would that be a win for open source? What would be gained?

I am not claiming that at all. As said, I agree the BSD license is a sane choice in this case. But it does not provide the safeties lemur2 talks about.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"How did they undermine kerberos? By adding their own proprietary extensions?
Yes, because those extensions made their kerberos implementation incompatible with the standard implementation in unix. It's not a perfect analogy to what lemur2 claimed would be impossible, but a pretty close match.
If that same software was GPLd they wouldn't be using it at all. Would that be a win for open source? What would be gained?
I am not claiming that at all. As said, I agree the BSD license is a sane choice in this case. But it does not provide the safeties lemur2 talks about.
"

I didn't talk at all about the BSD license providing any safeties.

Trying to make myself a bit clearer: what I said was this:
The whole point about watching video is compatibility. This (alone) should be enough to stop incompatible forks. There is no point in making something that won't work with the Webm group's codecs, and also paying Apple (or whoever) for the privilege of making that broken thing.


The desire for correct inter-operation between all the Webm players is the only thing that should prevent incompatibility:

http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

Anyone making an incopmaptible codec would not be allowed to call it Webm (which has to do with trademark law, not copyright, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the BSD license, which is a copyright license). Their new forked codec would be a different name, and it would be incompatible with the Webm stuff produced by all of the players shown on the above-linked page.

This alone is what should/could stop incompatible forks being widely used and becoming the standard. The BSD (copyright) license itself would do absolutely nothing to stop an incompatible fork.

Edited 2010-06-06 23:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Yes, because those extensions made their kerberos implementation incompatible with the standard implementation in unix. It's not a perfect analogy to what lemur2 claimed would be impossible, but a pretty close match.


How was kerberos undermined? They used kerberos + proprietary extensions to make it difficult for competing products to connect to Windows 2000. Kind of lame yes but their actions didn't undermine kerberos.

If kerberos was GPL'd they would have used something else or added some additional handshake.

Like a lot of software companies MS can certainly be accused of interoperability shenanigans, and I've had the joy of dealing with some of those shenanigans first hand but they haven't caused any harm to the kerberos project.

Reply Parent Score: 2