Submitted by 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.
nice summary and guidance… also, it’s nice to see a happy ending: (hey! not this kind of happy ending!)
“Ultimately, all the copyright holders of the Linux ath5k-driver code, derived from ar5k, have been contacted and have agreed to license their changes under the ISC license, thus allowing improvements to be re-incorporated into OpenBSD.”
I hope we don’t have this kind of problem again after this learning experience for both communities.
It’s ok for a closed-source company to re-license BSD code such that they lock their changes to BSD code away forever. That’s how the license goes. Why in this case people cried foul when someone re-licensed BSD code in a much more open way is beyond me.
Excuse moa, who said re-license? Heck, even Microsoft got BSDL code under BSDL and nobody is going to re-license it under other so called “commercial” license. And who said that companies does not contribute code back?
GPL is much more open way? YOU LOCKED MY CODE IN YOUR GPL LICENSE DAMMIT… hypocrite…
Full ack 🙂
Let’s see…
I just looked at the recent source code and it STILL has that paragraph:
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
With the following date under it: 2004/01/13
If you didn’t like the license-text, then why the hell did you contribute to that??? You must have known that somebody COULD make that code GPL-only.
You added code to a project that had both a permissive and a strong copyleft license, then throw a hissyfit when someone licenses that code under just one of those licenses? Your kidding, right?
Word of advice; Suck it up!
“Excuse moa, who said re-license? Heck, even Microsoft got BSDL code under BSDL and nobody is going to re-license it under other so called “commercial” license. And who said that companies does not contribute code back?
GPL is much more open way? YOU LOCKED MY CODE IN YOUR GPL LICENSE DAMMIT… hypocrite…”
YOUR EXCUSED
,I THOUGHT A HYPOCRITE, WAS SAY SOMEONE WHO SAY…ADVOCATES THE FREEDOM OF A LICENSE AND THEN WHEN THAT VERY FREEDOM IS UTILIZED, SUDDENLY THIS FREEDOM IS ATTACKED ON MORAL(SIC) GROUNDS. I FEAR AFTER THE ATTACKS ON OTHERS USING OPEN SOURCE LICENSES. ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE COMPANIES WHO LOCK BSD CODE IN “PROPRIETARY” CLOSED SOURCE ARE ATTACKED. AT LEAST GPL ACTUALLY STATES WHAT GPL AUTHORS WANT IN THE LICENSE. COMPANIES WHO USE BSD CODE HAVE THE CHOICE TO *CONTRIBUTE CODE BACK* THAT SAME CHOICE IS GRANTED TO COMPANIES WHO CHOSE TO OPEN SOURCE THEIR CODE UNDER GPL IF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THEN THE LICENSE NEEDS TO SPECIFICALLY STATE SUCH. BTW I SUSPECT THAT ALL THIS IS JUST ANNOYING AUTHORS OF GPL CODE THAT CONTRIBUTE BACK TO BSD CODE, WHEN YOU LABEL THEM HYPOCRITES ETC, OF COURSE YOU ARE ADVOCATING LOCKING THEIR CODE TO YOUR BSD LICENSE DAMMIT…HYPOCITE. AS A SIDE NOTE MOST PEOPLE ARE AMENABLE TO BOTH LICENSES, AND SEE ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF BOTH
can I stop all this shouting now.
Edited 2007-09-30 18:23
Noone LOCKED YOUR f–kING CODE IN YOUR GPL LICENSE DAMMIT, because noone can take the copyright from you. Your code is yours forever, gpl’ed are the changes and creative work. It’s not like someone can steal your code, can they? Which brings me to the question if you want noone to steal and lock your code, why did you released it under the bsd license in the first place?
Edited 2007-09-30 16:56
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.
>>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.”
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
“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.
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).
Of course BSD projects can use GPL’ed code
IF you license under BSD, you want your product to be able to be used by ALL. Even closed source products. Simply everybody, for any use (Does it get much more free than this?).
By accepting GPL code into your project, you put restrictions on the entire product.
So what’s the problem with using it in a GPLed product, then? It may be more restrictive than the BSDL, but it’s certainly a lot more open than closed source!
Thanks for exposing the double standards some of the BSD advocates have demonstrated here…
> So what’s the problem with using it in a GPLed product, then? It may be
> more restrictive than the BSDL, but it’s certainly a lot more open than
> closed source!
I cannot speak for the previous poster(s), so I will just answer this question: Nothing! What is wrong is to re-license the source code under the GPL. I won’t go into moral or ethics here; it’s simply not permitted by the BSD license.
If you want to use BSD-licensed code in a GPL’ed project, just do it the same as a proprietary software vendor would do: leave the BSD license on those files intact. After all, proprietary vendors may not re-license the code either; they just have permission to distribute the code and modifications to it, in source or binary form.
> Thanks for exposing the double standards some of the BSD
> advocates have demonstrated here…
<sarcasm> Should I say, “welcome to OSNews”? </sarcasm>
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
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,
The point of the BSD license is to allow everybody to use the code in the matter that they want. If they want to give back fine. If they dont want to give back, thats also fine.
But when you copy it and GPL it, just for the sake of GPLing it, that is in my opinion unethical (but certainly perfectly legal).
How can it be unethical when that is exactly the goal of BSD, i.e. allow anyone to use the code in the matter that they want? Would taking BSD code and re-releasing the modified program as closed-source binaries be unethical as well?
I am a far cry from an expert on the subject but BSD code used in a closed source application would still be licensed under BSD code would it not?
As to GPL vs closed source uses of BSD code, I hold open source projects to a higher standard. If the original programmer releases a substantial chunk of code under a BSD license I personally consider it good manners to license the modifications under the BSD license as well. This does not preclude dual licensing the changes but part of the draw of open source is the synergy of a lot of developers doing what they love. I still have no clear knowledge as to whether it is “legal” to take BSD code and GPL it but also do not care to be honest. If you are going to use the work of others share your changes back with a license that honors the original code’s license. Closed or Open Source I think this should be done.
The original, unaltered code still is, but any derivatives are not. That’s the whole point.
The BSD license does indeed allow this. You should care, as this is what makes the BSD a “permissive” license.
This doesn’t make any sense. If you use BSD code in a proprietary, closed-source program, you obviously cannot redistribute the closed-source program as BSD (since it would no longer be closed-source).
What you’re looking for, i.e. a license that requires you to pass on your changes under license, already exists. It’s called the GPL.
Just because someone uses BSD code in a closed source program does not mean that it is the whole program, or even most of it. The point is if you improve the BSD code return the improvements to the BSD community.
No what I am looking for is an open source community that gives back to the originator of the code without being forced to through a license.
Edited 2007-10-01 03:32
It does not automatically mean it, but that’s kind of the point. With BSD, you can take the code, modify it and then not return it. That *is* the main difference with copyleft licenses. So while might do it, others won’t. That’s the freedom that anti-GPL advocates say the BSD has that copyleft licenses don’t have.
Again, some may do this, but others won’t. *That* is the point.
Sure, but since you give the choice of giving/not giving back, you cannot then complain when people choose not to give back, otherwise that would be hypocritical. Either the two choices are acceptable to the person writing the program, or then he must choose another license.
Since people choosing BSD are okay with the licence, then it means they must be okay with the fact that some will not give back, and in that sense they can’t differentiate if that person wants to close it up, or distribute it under a copyleft license – that is, if they want to be logically consistent.
Your earlier statement implied that commercial developers could not return changes to the BSD projects without devaluing or giving up their own product to BSD. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case much of the time.
Thus my statement that I hold open source developers to a higher standard. Nor am I complaining, I am simply stating an opinion.
Never did I say they were required by law or license that you return improvements to the original in the case of BSD. I disagree with the concept of licenses being the “moral commandments” of the software world however. It is not hypocritical to say that to take code and not return changes is impolite, it is an opinion.
It is my opinion that the open source community should return value to the BSD of their own free will without having to be asked to. You say they do not have to return value and that if they wanted to force the return they could use GPL. This is true, it could be achieved in this manner, but the GPL should not be used as a blunt instrument to force people to give back to the open source community. The open source community should act as an exemplar for closed source developers and cooperate with each other. An example of how you can enrich the community by choice rather than force.
The attitude of “well if you want me to give back force me to by using a license that requires it” is sort of sad in my opinion. Can’t developers respect the hard work of the originators and help them just as they helped you?
Excuse me?
It is the BSD community that insists that it cannot use the GPL license terms.
If the BSD community really wants others to give code back, then they could just include that as a condition of their license … then they would be compatible with the GPL and there would be no problem.
If the BSD community really wants their code to be used by other parties in any way they want to, without any requirement to give back … then it is clearly inconsistent of the BSD community to be OK with that for use of their code in commercial closed-source products but to object for use of their code in open source GPL projects.
If the BSD community wants to be consistent in their treatment of all others, then they have no leg to stand on at all in this whole issue, and they should just crawl back under their rock IMO, saying as they do so “sorry, don’t mind us, we don’t know what we really want and we don’t realise what we are really saying”.
“sorry, don’t mind us, we don’t know what we really want and we don’t realise what we are really saying”.
We want our code to be usable by all, even in propriary products.
We want developers who improve our code to give back.
We do not want to be held hostage by the GPL in the future.
If the BSD community really wants others to give code back, then they could just include that as a condition of their license … then they would be compatible with the GPL and there would be no problem.
We want code back. And you know what? MOST companies who _improve_ (Not merely implement) BSD code, give back.
I agree with Kokopelli, we expected more from the GPL camp.
“Proprietary” in want (1) is essentially incompatible with want (2).
If you really want (2), why don’t you just ask for it?
If you actually asked for want (2), your license would essentially BE the GPL (in that it would be copyleft rather than permissive). Since you avoid using the GPL, clearly you don’t actually mean it when you say you want code back (per want 2).
If you don’t want to use the GPL (as implied by want 3) then you are simply dreaming about want (2).
Then just ask for code back. Simple. Make it possible for developers to give you code back without also allowing that code to be raped and plundered by proprietary interests stealing it from whoever gives it to you. Make your license copyleft, reflecting what you say that you want, and become compatible with the GPL.
I am going to call you on that one. You are telling porkies here I feel.
Edited 2007-10-01 11:09
Lemur – Apple has given code back for BSD licenses. A lot of the BSD code is given back by companies only.
Secondly I think the criticism by BSD team here is valid. If there are two open source projects for something and one uses GPL and another uses BSD then all the modifications from BSD goes to GPL but not vice versa.
In case of BSD code getting used in commercial products, there are many times donations and also source code giving back.
With GPL it is one way road. As I said earlier, yes it is legal for people to do this. But it doesn’t mean it is Moral. Now some may chose to ignore moral values but it doesn’t mean you stop others from criticising them.
I personally feel moral values are far more important for a better society than legal enforcement like the ones done by DRM or GPL or Microsoft EULA.
I can’t see this at all, not one tiny bit of it.
If you want code back, what on earth is the problem with simply making that a condition of giving your code out in the first place?
If you don’t necessarily want it back from any one party, what justification can you possibly have for throwing a hissy fit over not getting it back from any other party?
If GPL developers are saying to you “I want to write open code, and all I want in return is to be assured that others who improve on my efforts also keep the improvements open” … (which is an aim essentially in tune with your own) … then how can you legitimately get upset with them if they say to you (perfectly consistent with both your published credo and their own) … “so sorry but I can’t give my code under your terms because you allow it to be taken and become non-open”.
This is especially true when, if you just were to make it a condition of your license that code improvements are given back, which is what you say you want to happen anyway, then those GPL developers would be happy to give you their coding efforts under such terms (because they already do exactly that anyway).
You BSD-license people are simply making no sense here on this topic.
You seriously need to re-think what you are trying to say, before you go criticising anyone else who is being perfectly consistent with what they say they want AND with what you say you want.
Edited 2007-10-01 11:41
All I can say is that you are too hung up on legal stuff.
Legal doesn’t mean it is right, period. It is legal for government to spy on people but that neither makes it right nor moral.
Please for once try to leave the legalities aside and then look at the whole situation.
Fair enough … but I ask the same of you.
The whole situation is this:
GPL developers: “I would like others to use & enjoy my code so I relese it as open source, and all I ask is that it remains open”.
BSD license: “Here is some code. Do with it what you will”.
GPL developers to BSD developers: “OK, thanks”.
BSD developers: “Hey, you didn’t give code back”.
GPL developers: “You didn’t ask for it back”.
BSD developers: “But we want it back”.
GPL developers: “But you don’t require it. We can only give you code if it is required to keep it open”.
BSD developers: “But we want it back”.
GPL developers: “We will gladly give it back to you if you put that very want as a condition of your license”.
BSD developers: “But then we can’t apply our double-standard and let proprietary commercial interests steal our efforts and yours. Wha wha wha”.
Edited 2007-10-01 12:16
To answer your last sentence, if we want we can make sure that we still provide commercial support to let our industries grow and provide more employement and yet keep the GPL people out. We just need to add this clause (after some refinement) to the license:
“The licence and distribution terms for any publically available
version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code
cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence
(including the GNU Public Licence).”
However most project don’t add it because BSD followers believe in society where people are good and honest and people who value other people’s hard-work.
Unfortunately for you, your proposed clause again does not achieve what you say you want, which you have now changed to
Your clause would make it impossible to put BSD-license code under any type of new distribution license, including the GPL and also including proprietary distribution.
If you wanted to do what you now say you want, why not just keep the code closed, and employ people to write it?
If you want to have open code, AGAIN I ask you what is the problem with putting it as a requirement in your license to keep the code open?
You do realise that there are quite a number of commercial products that use Linux & other GPL code, they keep the code open as required, yet they still sell product and thereby provide employment?
Just say what you really want. The BSD license, as it stands, really does not do that, it does not say what it really wants.
Apparently, from your posts so far, I can only conclude that what you really want is for developers to contribute BSD code for free up to the point where companies can take it, pay nothing back, and then charge yet other people money for using that code.
How is that moral, in any way, shape or form?
Edited 2007-10-01 12:52
Here is how it works:
– Universities do research and release code under BSD
– Developers add more code in their free time to BSD
– Companies take this code and make commercial products from it.
– Companies hire more people as they prosper
– This brings more innovation and growth of software industry.
– Companies also give money back to universities for further research.
– Go back to step 1 and circle of life is complete.
Yes developers are not getting any direct benefit but there are always benefits from the industry growth.
Apple is an example how they built one of the best OS based on an open source (BSD based) kernel.
But you said before it didn’t work … and you were right.
OK, consider this as a proposition:
– Universities do research and release code under GPL
– Developers add more code in their free time to GPL
– Companies take this code and make commercial products from it.
– Companies hire more people as they prosper
– This brings more innovation and growth of software industry.
– Companies also give money back to universities for further research.
– Go back to step 1 and circle of life is complete.
!!!!
… and the added benefits are:
(1) the code remains open at all times around the loop for all iterations, and
(2) it makes sure the “give back” part of the loop doesn’t get forgotten.
Don’t try and claim that companies don’t make commercial products from GPL code, as that claim is simply not so.
There are even consortiums of companies doing it, e.g:
http://www.embedded-computing.com/news/db/?8517
And by the way if GPL camp is so much for license bindings then why did everyone whined so much on Novell-Microsoft deal. After all that was done with GPL license compliance. Because everyone felt it was cheating the community the same way BSD team feels about GPL camp.
The GPL v2 contains an implied patent grant, but it was not specific.
The Novell-Microsoft deal found a loophole, in giving a patent promise to only some recipients of the GPL code, and not to other recipients of the selfsame code.
The GPL v3 license merely removed the lack of specificity about the patnet grant, making it explicitly stated that if you release code under the GPL then you gave a patent grant to anyone who got that code from any source, not only to those who got the code directly from you.
GPL v3 closed the loophole that Microsoft was trying to use to make the GPL code effectively closed and available only from one source. They were trying to make it cost something to use the GPL codebase. This is what a monopoly aims to do.
Surely you are not claiming that the Microsoft-Novell approach to trying to milk money out of code written by other people was in any way moral?
You really, really need to think this whole thing through, before you make yourself look even sillier and more inconsistent with yourself than you already have.
Edited 2007-10-01 13:16
Lemur2: You really, really need to think this whole thing through, before you make yourself look even sillier and more inconsistent with yourself than you already have.
So now you need to resort to insults. Nice way to carry a conversation.
To answer your question, one one side you guys say that license is license, that is it. So if license gives you some rights, you can exercise it. No moral stuff involved.
Then you say we whine on Novell-Microsft deal because it was not moral. And on the same time do the immoral BSD code squatting. Do you see the inconsistency here?
Can you show me a similar inconsitency with BSD team’s stand?
Edited 2007-10-01 14:42
Oh, come on. This comment was made in reply to a post which had repeated for the fourth or fifth time that GPL developers weren’t moral, yet at the same time refused to answer the basic question put (which BTW is still unanswered) – “why don’t you include any ‘give code back’ requirement in your license if that is what you want and actually expect of people”?
No inconsistency. Novell-Microsoft deal is bad because it offers patent license to some recipients of the code but not others, thereby trying to establish a sole-source supplier and institute per-seat license fees for code that was written by other people and whose intent for that code was that it remain free. Bad. Immoral. Quite clear cut, really.
The BSD license is not good because it allows code to become non-free. If you really want to let a megacorp take you code and imorally rip Joe public off for using an obscured extended incompatible version of it … then by all means use a BSD license … but don’t expect me to be complicit in any of that because I don’t like ripping Joe public off, it it is all the same to you.
The BSD developers are hypocrites (which, in case you didn’t know, is a bad thing and not all that moral) because they think it fine for a megacorp to be allowed to embrace their code and rip joe public off with it and not give anything back … but it is “immoral” for GPL developers to embrace their code and ensure it remains free for all including Joe public … but not give anything back (their reason being that lack of assurance that their efforts would remain free).
There is your “inconsitency with BSD team’s stand”. It is not, I grant you, a similar “inconsistency” to that which you claimed … because the GPL position is in no way inconsistent.
The GPL position is entirely consistent … “if you use our code contributions, you must ensure the code remains open by giving any changes back and by granting royalty-free use of any embodied patents to any and all recipients of the code”. The GPL developers are perfectly consistent with that.
The BSD developers are hypocrites (which, in case you didn’t know, is a bad thing and not all that moral) because they think it fine for a megacorp to be allowed to embrace their code and rip joe public off with it and not give anything back … but it is “immoral” for GPL developers to embrace their code and ensure it remains free for all including Joe public … but not give anything back (their reason being that lack of assurance that their efforts would remain free).
GPL developers are assholes who does not care about freedom to choose license and feel morally high ground by stealing BSDL code any time and brag later about” Real GPL Freedom (sic)”.
Put your GPL into hole where sun does not shine and go forth and multiply.
/case closed.
antik, you know, you just gave quite an immature image of yourself
Next time I’d suggest you to think a little before you write something if you don’t want to make a fool of yourself, ok? 
And about stealing.. Well, if you don’t want your code to used and modified under a different license then why do you choose to use a license which permits that? Your own fault really. Besides, the original code is still available. It didn’t go away. As such it’s not really stealing. Besides, you let corporates do the same and don’t complain about it so that indeed does make you a hypocrite. Fun, eh
And about stealing.. Well, if you don’t want your code to used and modified under a different license then why do you choose to use a license which permits that? Your own fault really.
Who permit what? I am now positive that GPL zealots are all illiterate:
* Copyright (c) “year”, “copyright holder”
* All rights reserved.
*
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following isclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
About dual-licensing- in my understanding dual-licensed code SHOULD BE released under BOTH licenses, not only under you favorite one. That OR clausle is just plain stupid.
IMHO.
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following isclaimer.
Yes? You retain all those, then just add a few extra clauses like that you need to distribute your source code to anyone who asks for it and voila! It’s GPL.
About dual-licensing- in my understanding dual-licensed code SHOULD BE released under BOTH licenses, not only under you favorite one. That OR clausle is just plain stupid.
How can two licenses apply simultaneously if they have any conflicting clauses? And since GPL is a subset of BSD it would essentially mean the code is GPL. Nuh-uh, dual-licensing means just that: two licenses and you can choose yourself which one to abide.
I am now positive that GPL zealots are all illiterate:
Why do you keep insulting people? It’s just you who you’re hurting here. Besides..just to let you know a secret: I am not a GPL “zealot”. I actually prefer BSD license myself. But I hate it when people say one thing and do another..
“Then you say we whine on Novell-Microsft deal because it was not moral. And on the same time do the immoral BSD code squatting. Do you see the inconsistency here?
Can you show me a similar inconsitency with BSD team’s stand?”
The MS-Novel deal goes against the spirit of the GPL license, so a new version was developed to fix that loophole.
BSD advocates claim that “taking but not giving back” goes against the spirit of the BSD license (although it seems to be only in some cases, namely when GPL is involved), yet they do nothing to fix the license to enforce what they actually want.
You cannot say one thing on your license and then request something else, because the licensee might not be able to comply with that extra requirement.
GPL developers: “But you don’t require it. We can only give you code if it is required to keep it open”.
Code given back under BSD will always be open, no matter what other parties do with it.
Sure, the code you give back can be used in closed source project, but the very code you submitted, will always be free.
Unfortunately, not so.
Example: IBM invented a protocol at one time called “Server Message Block”. It was effectively released under a permissive license, a very BSD-like license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_message_block
This same protocol has since been given the “embrace, extend and extinguish” treatment by Microsoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace_and_extend
Microsoft did a similar trick with Kerberos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_%28protocol%29
This was possible because Kerberos was originally released under a copyright license similar to the BSD license. No requirement to “give back” extensions, or in other words no copy-left.
The very thing that makes an “embrace, extend, extinguish” strategy at all possible is an open and permissive license (similar to the BSD license) for the original concepts and/or code.
So no, sorry, but there is enormous historical precedent which shows us that the code under any BSD-type license will not necessarily always be free. It is unfortunately all too easy (given a near-monopoly position in a market) to extend and then effectively extinguish (by making incompatible extensions) any code released under such a permissive license.
Edited 2007-10-01 13:52
Sorry, but you fail at this one.
So no, sorry, but there is enormous historical precedent which shows us that the code under any BSD-type license will not necessarily always be free
The original code is still FREE. Do a google, im sure you can find the _original_ source of both.
What other companies added to _their_ versions later is irrelevant to this discussion.
Example:
You run project 1, BSD license
I take your code, make project 2
I run project 2 under a propriary license, and develop it further.
Your code is still free. No matter what I do to your code, your code will always remain free.
Minor point. The original code to Kerberos is still open, but it is next-to-useless because that vast majority of what are effectively extended Kerberos installations are incompatible due to their proprieatry extensions. In effect, the original Kerberos code is thereby extinguished.
Says you. From my point of view, it is the whole discussion. The only effective difference between, and barrier between permissive BSD-like licenses and copyleft GPL-like licenses is that the permissive licenses have no defence against embrace, extend and extinguish tactics by megacorp monopolies, whereas the copyleft licenses do.
What is totally mysterious is that when you point these facts out to permissive license advocates, and you point out that a permissive license wants give-back but doesn’t require it … the advocates do their level best to change the subject and introduce irrelevancies, even going so far as to claim that the subject isn’t the subject.
No, you aren’t paying attention. Your original code may still be free, but it is effectively extinguished.
The further point … how is it moral for Microsoft to embrace (read take) IBM’s Server Message Block, and MIT’s Kerberos, and extend them both and effectively extinguish the original works, and then charge everyone else on the planet and literally make billions of profit off the work and efforts of other people?
You “permissive license” advocates are in effect claiming the moral high ground, but you simply don’t hold that ground at all. There is no moral in letting a megacorp rip people off using YOUR work to do so.
Edited 2007-10-01 14:17
Now Lemur2 something on the same topic from the horse’s mouth. I hope that makes you feel the pain of BSD developers. Stallman on unfair competition between xemacs and emacs:
XEmacs is GNU software because it’s a modified version of a GNU program. And it is GNU software because the FSF is the copyright holder for most of it, and therefore the legal responsibility for protecting its free status falls on us whether we want it or not. This is why the term “GNU XEmacs” is legitimate.
But in another sense it is not GNU software, because we can’t use XEmacs in the GNU system: using it would mean paying a price in terms of our ability to enforce the GPL. Some of the people who have worked on XEmacs have not provided, and have not asked other contributors to provide, the legal papers to help us enforce the GPL. I have managed to get legal papers for some parts myself, but most of the XEmacs developers have not helped me get them.
XEmacs was possible because free software means that anyone can change it and distribute a modified version. I have no regrets about establishing this freedom for Emacs. Everyone should have the freedom to change any program, and this is not limited to changes that the original author likes.
Many people have taken advantage of the freedom to change GNU Emacs, over the last decade. Most of them were willing to cooperate on integrating their changes into Emacs. XEmacs arose as a separate forked version because some of the developers–starting with Zawinski–were unwilling to do that.
People should have the freedom to decide what to work on, including the freedom to compete with the GNU project, but it’s a shame when they make that choice. The whole community loses when someone chooses competition rather than cooperation.
But this is worse than competition–it is unfair competition. The XEmacs developers can and do copy code they like from Emacs. If I could copy the code I like from XEmacs in the same way, at least the rivalry would be fair. But I can’t do that, because substantial parts of XEmacs don’t have legal papers, or don’t have known authors.
As long as we cannot use XEmacs in the GNU system, the GNU project has to make sure that Emacs is not left behind. In other words, we have to behave like rivals too, even though we wish there were no rivalry. When XEmacs developers try to persuade people to use, test, fix and enhance XEmacs instead of Emacs, the GNU project can’t sit still; we need them to use, test, fix and enhance Emacs instead.
There is good code in XEmacs, which I’d be happy to have in a merged Emacs any day. But I cannot copy it out of XEmacs myself because of the uncertain authorship and/or lack of legal papers.
This problem could probably be resolved, at least for large parts of XEmacs, with substantial help from the authors of that code. Otherwise, the GNU project has to write or find replacements for it.
I invite people who like Emacs, and want the best possible version of Emacs to be available for use in the GNU system, to help in one way or the other.
Edited 2007-10-01 15:01
I agree with Stallman.
So why don’t BSD developers put a copy-left requirement in their license, to enable co-operation, to ensure that the code contributed as open source by developers remains open, to provide a defence against “embrace, extend and extinguish” tactics by megacorps, to ensure that Joe public isn’t charged for your work which you developed with an intent it should be open, and to actually ensure what you state was your intention “that recipients of this code should give their changes back”.
Why not simply require as part of your license terms that any changes are to be given back to the project?
This is, after all, what you say is what you want to happen. It is what you say you are getting all riled up over. So … just require it and the “problem” you say you have with GPL developers would disappear … and Joe public is safe from being ripped off by megacorps. Everyone wins … except megacorps.
You still utterly fail to explain your position, and your insistence on being incompatible with the GPL, yet you are also saying that you “want code back” just as enabling compatibility with the GPL would actually give to you.
You are making no sense. Get back to me when you can make some sense, won’t you?
Edited 2007-10-01 15:25
Lemur2 if stallman’s words on “how unfair this practice is” doesn’t ring a bell for you then i certainly am discussing with the wrong person.
Edited 2007-10-01 15:25
BSD developers put themselves in an unfair position releasing their work under an unfair license. How comes they later complain about being treated exactly the way they’re asking (as per the BSD license wording) to be treated?
Likewise, if you can’t understand how unfair it is to offer some code for anyone to use then let a megacorp use it to rip people off, and if you can’t understand how inconsistent it is to ask for changes back from GPL developers but not from megacorps, then clearly I too am discussing this with the wrong person.
Especially if I keep saying to you that “your terms and mine are essentially the same, we both want open code and we want changes to be given back, so if you put that in your license so that I can be assured further changes will be given back then I can give you my current changes” … yet you refuse to do so … or even come up with the slightest hint of a reason why you refuse to do so … I am simply left with no choice but to believe that you actually want my changes to eventually be taken up by a megacorps and not given back.
Sorry. No can do. I don’t believe in Joe public being ripped off through my efforts, thank you. I want my code to remain open, if it is all the same to you … and I will stick to that while complying with every single thing that you require in your license as well.
Archiesteel you raised a question on why are BSD people criticising GPL people. I answered you in my post here:
http://www.osnews.com/reply.php?news_id=18704&comment_id=275454http…
You did not refute that, so does that mean you agree that the criticism of GPL by BSD team is valid? If yes then why are you defening GPL team again in other posts. If no then why are you only selectively replying to posts to defend GPL here?
I am just asking because I want to make sure we cover all the points in the discussion and not selectively ignore topics where others have a point.
Edited 2007-10-01 11:11
What criticism of the GPL did you make?
You said in effect that the GPL takes a legal approach to getting parties to “give code back”, and that in contrast the BSD license took a moral approach, and then you admitted that the moral approach did not work …
I said may be moral approach doesn’t work because GPL followers take BSD code and don’t give back.
So do you agree that moral approach doesn’t work which in turn would prove that GPL people have no moral values either.
Edited 2007-10-01 11:46
Rubbish. You simply said it doesn’t work.
And you are right, it doesn’t work … because anyone and everyone takes BSD code and doesn’t give back.
Pfft. I notice you go for an insult, rather than answering the question.
So I simply put the question back to you … “What is actually wrong with making it a condition of your license to give code improvements back, since this is what you say is what you want to happen anyway”?
I ask this question of you AGAIN in view of the facts that:
(a) the lack of this provision in your license is the only reason why GPL developers can’t give you their code, and
(b) the lack of this provision in your license means that you freely permit the GPL developers to do what they are doing … yet you criticise them and only them for it.
Your lack of an answer on the question in this post is quite telling really.
Edited 2007-10-01 12:08
What question are you asking? BSD license permits you to take the code, yes it does. But there is an expectation that you would give something back to the original developers.
Either you give monetary benefits or contribute your code back. This is just what you would do in a moral society.
If one does something good for you, you do good for them to repay them as a regard for their hard work.
At least if i take 5000 lines of code of somebody, i would try to add my 5000 lines of code to that and give it back. I wouldn’t just use that code, relicense it and say piss off to original developer who did his hardwork and was nice enough to share it with me.
May be GPL followers feel it is fine but my conscious doesn’t allow it.
And btw the criticism is not only targetted at GPL people, it happened with commercial companies although history has shows commercial companies has given more back to BSD than GPL people have ever.
So what answer are you seeking really…
Q: “Why don’t you upgrade your “expectation” that improvements to your code are given back into a condition of your license”.
That is the question. Why not include this expectation as a condition of your BSD license, making your BSD license copy-left?
That simple provision, which is not in any way incompatible with what you claim that you want, would make it easy & simple for GPL developers to give you code back, because being a copyleft license would ensure that the code remains open.
It is almost as though there is a sub-intent of the BSD license, in specifically removing that one condition that would make it copyleft, that means the BSD license is really intended to get open-source developers to work for free to get code to a point where commercial interests can use it without having to pay anything in return for it.
This is, I suspect, the real answer to the question, which you are studiously trying to avoid.
Edited 2007-10-01 12:19
I think we can criticize someone taking up BSD code for commercial use and not giving anything back to the community “on the moral grounds”. Not on the legal grounds. SUN has received same criticism in past.
And I think the criticism shouldn’t always be treated as a negative thing. It can be very constructive at times so I don’t see anything bad in being criticised even if it is on the moral grounds.
My thinking on the liceses is that GPL takes a Legal way to enforce the giving back while BSD takes a Moral way. I guess in today’s world, may be the Moral ways doesn’t work that well…eh?
Edited 2007-10-01 01:38
Oh that Peter Noone, always with taking of the copyrights ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Noone ).
@smitty said:
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.”
You’re not getting it!, Those commercial entities are not changing the licence.. in fact they are required under law to distribute the original licence text in any associated documentation.
Companies using BSD licenced code are usually happy to provide security patches and small fixes.. Why? because the company is thankful for the developers..
GPL projects can use BSD licenced code, but the reverse is not possible… interoperability dies instantly..
“GPL projects can use BSD licensed code, but the reverse is not possible… interoperability dies instantly..”
proprietary Binary projects can use GPL licensed code, but the reverse is not possible…but with GPL the code is still available to *study*
If the case is that BSD is always the poorer half of the sharing equation then it needs to enforce this sharing. A example of this is GPL.
Companies writing GPL licensed code are usually happy to provide security patches and small fixes..to the BSD parts.
The thing I object to about your and other comments is the three lies you are trying to enforce.
1) Companies are moral.
GPL violations are common. They will get away with whatever they can, and will only do things that benefit them. In fact countless times on here we are subjected to amoral actions being excused for *buisness* reasons.
2) Companies use BSD.
Actually I suspect most will use Apache or GPL.
3) GPL authors(almost certainly working for companies) do not contribute back to BSD code. Actually spreading this lie amongst a *larger* GPL community will cause those who happily dual license and give back(sic) to BSD cause for thought.
Edited 2007-09-30 19:45
You’re not getting it!
I think you’ve got that backwards.
in fact they are required under law
As I said, I’m talking only about that morals involved, not the specific legal situation. I’d like to hear someone (anyone) tell me why it is morally OK to integrate the code into a proprietary product which doesn’t give anything back, but not OK to put it in a GPL product that still shares the code with the opensource community, at least part of it. Without getting into a “it’s not legal” argument.
Companies using BSD licenced code are usually happy to provide security patches and small fixes.. Why? because the company is thankful for the developers..
GPL projects can use BSD licenced code, but the reverse is not possible… interoperability dies instantly..
That’s much more of what I was looking for, but although there are plenty of proprietary companies that give back there are also plenty of others that don’t. And the license seems to explicitly give permission for companies NOT to give anything back, so if that was so important to you wouldn’t it make more sense to choose a license that forces you to give stuff back? By choosing BSD, it seems like you’ve made a conscious decision that companies giving back and contributing isn’t the most important thing to you. Which is why I’m a bit confused that you do think GPL projects should be forced to do so.
Edited 2007-09-30 19:46
>> I’d like to hear someone (anyone) tell me why it is morally OK to integrate the code into a proprietary product which doesn’t give anything back, but not OK to put it in a GPL product that still shares the code with the opensource community, at least part of it.
BSD cant use GPL code!
And your not giving back to a propritary product, your giving back to a Open Source BSD licensed project! (If you choose to do so)
So the point is that GPL can’t ever go to BSD, but proprietary still has that option even though you’re fine if it doesn’t? I don’t really agree with that viewpoint, but I guess I can at least understand it. Thanks.
A company I worked for used BSD licenced code in a product, did we just take the code and ditch the community? no!
* We read their mailing lists… we provided feedback.. and we provided patches..
* We would never try forcing a proprietary licence on the changes, but we were glad to be able to keep larger customizations to ourselves..
Why? because we respected the original developers.. and friendships are often formed
Edited 2007-09-30 19:22
I don’t see this discussion, comments in this article, going anywhere…
specially when people mod down comments they just don’t agree with (as, in OSNews, the mod down option isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with someone else… is about control spam, trolls and etc [*] )
I hope the heat turn down a bit and people can have an actual useful, meaningful discussion.
[*] From OSNews mod system: “Disagreeing with a comment or a user is not a valid reason to use the moderate. Comment votes are alloted to draw attention to insightful and informative comments and remove trash and trolls from our forums. They should not be used to remove comments with which you do not agree.“
I don’t see this discussion, comments in this article, going anywhere…
specially when people mod down comments they just don’t agree with (as, in OSNews, the mod down option isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with someone else… is about control spam, trolls and etc [*] )
This has been a problem for a _long_ time now, sadly.
The only solution is to browse at -5, since many of the most inslightful comments are often modded down just becuse people disagree.
“””
“””
I agree with the advice to browse at -5.
However, the solution is the same as in a democracy. Use your votes. If people do not vote up the comments which they believe are worthy, letting their votes go to waste, it gives a few abusive individuals excessive control over the score of other people’s posts. Remember that these abusive people now have a practically unlimited number of comment votes with which to promote their reign of terror.
I know of a guy that I’m pretty sure has a list of at least three people, possibly more, whom he tracks via RSS and mods down every post they make. (I can’t prove it. I’m just pretty sure.) And those people he mods down tend to make quality posts. We should be right there to mod them back up. And if we are too complacent to do so, it’s our own fault. (I’m as guilty as anyone.)
The current mod system, like a democratic government, places the ultimate responsibility for how well things work upon *our* shoulders.
Personally, I think that we *all* have too many comment votes and that the number should be cut in half.
Edited 2007-10-02 18:24
Could the person who modded this poster down please explain why (i.e.the OP I’m replying to)? I see another post where someone (no names) calls another poster a “liar”, yet he gets modded up.
This is not a discussion. This is mob rule.
edit: clarified.
Edited 2007-10-01 00:42
off-topic
=========
@anomie don’t be shy you can mention me by name. I use the term “lie” when I should perhaps use words like “subterfuge”; “misinformation”; “propaganda”; “spin” or the ever weak “FUD”…but its *not* the right word.
It is a failing of me as a poster, that I cannot “pass myself off as a Disappointed Vista User” or “pretend to have common ground kinship even” or “point out a weak good point followed by a bad point”; or mention an vaguely on-topic post followed by a unsubstantiated attack”, and maybe I should be building those very skills, which I admire in others. I simply do not have the skillset.
…but then I can only call a lie a lie. If thats upsetting then don’t lie.
I want to point out that someone modded even your post down (which I modded back up +1). Not because I agree with your post — which I don’t particularly — but because this entire discussion is a good case in point about why the “mod system” is being used as a tool to stifle discussion.
I would think that freedom proponents (both GPL and BSD folks) would thrive on free exchanges of ideas rather than trying to bury opposing views.
I don’t know what else to say. I enjoy the osnews forums and the knowledgeable contributions I frequently read, but as usual a few disturbed individuals ruin it for the group.
Osnews commenting works that way. People mod down comments all the time because they disagree with something you say. I know it can get frustrating. As an example, i posted above a real example from a real-life (and very good) project about a license which is BSD but avoids the problem of people re-licensing code in GPL and people modded me down:).
http://www.osnews.com/reply.php?news_id=18704&comment_id=275437
There’s really no reason that mods need to be anonymous. It would be good to require a one-line comment for negative mods (maybe a comment would be good for positive mods as well). It would make the various user factions clearer, but people would also think more before making bad mods.
I agree, IMHO transparency is always a good thing.
@mcduck:
But when you copy it and GPL it, just for the sake of GPLing it, that is in my opinion unethical (but certainly perfectly legal).
It’s not legal to GPL BSD licenced code, these developers attempted it.. but it’s not legal…
Did you guys look at the flat assembler (fasm) license? I really like this license if i want to use BSD style license which promotes commercial development.
It is basically a BSD license with this extra clause:
“The licence and distribution terms for any publically available
version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code
cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence
(including the GNU Public Licence).”
antik, why you go against BSD license and insult people that use it literally ? Or we have 2 BSD licenses, one for “white ppl with cache” (Moral, freedom, friendhip, etc) and one for others ( us, GPL FSF followers ).
GPL camp shows such an intolerance and lack of respect towards other people’s views that it is hardly in good taste. Forcing others to agree to your opinions doesn’t sound right. But this is what GPL camp tries to do, stuff their agenda down others throat. The so called freedom army of stallman. If not by force then by code squatting.
Edited 2007-10-02 10:19
This thread is full of questions posed towards people who claim to represent the “BSD license camp” point of view.
Questions such as “what do you really want”? and “what did you actually mean to say”? and “if you really want that, why don’t you just ask for it”?
It also contains repeated accusations about “the GPL camp is not moral”, or “the GPL camp is this or that” … accusations made by people who did not actually understand the GPL camp’s position, and would not listen to it when it was explained to them.
Yet now, having had it patiently explained to them, we see a claim
.
Incredible! Which side was it again seeking answers on the other sides views? Which side was it throwing out unfounded accusations about the other sides behaviour, without understanding? Which side was it that had a consistent, fair and unselfish position (protecting the interests of Joe public by keeping the code open) in the final analysis? And, most tellingly, which side was it that couldn’t give straightforward answers to the simple question “what do you really want”?
It is almost unbelievable how badly some people can get the wrong end of the stick, and accuse others of bad behaviour that it turns out they themselves are guilty of.
I say “almost unbelievable” because there happens to be a psychological term that describes this type of phenomenon very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Since there is a term for it, it must be, somewhat surprisingly, not that uncommon.
Edited 2007-10-02 10:43
To answer your question:
We want to see honesty in people so that if one benefits from our code then they contribute back to us in a un-selfish manner such that our contribution can let our industry grow.
GPL stand is that corporations are bad, we respectfully disagree. Since GPL people take our code, all we want from them is at least give us something in return. We don’t want to force it, we just seek good behavior based on moral values. We can go legal way if we want but we want people to realize the value of moral values and not just talk to the hand approach.
SUN gives back, Apple gives back, heck even Microsoft gives back in terms of their funding in universities and releasing their code under BSD like WiX installer and under MS-PL.
So why can’t someone from GPL camp who takes BSD code, simply give us at minimum equal number of line of code back under our license?
You have thoughroughly misunderstood the GPL stand, then. The GPL stand is not “corporations are bad”, the GPL stand is twofold: “rip-off is bad” (no matter who does it) and “the code must remain open” (no matter who takes it). The second part of this stand prevents the first from happening.
Despite your apparent confusion over this, the fact that the code must remain open does NOT prevent commercialisation of the code. It is quite permissible to sell products with GPL code in them … the only requirement is to make the source code available. This is done for many products … I gave you a link to an example for mobile phones.
Sigh! How many times do you have to be told … GPL developers are more than willing to give code back. They do this very thing themselves over and over … it is almost their credo. The one and only thing they require is that there must be a proviso going with that code that it always remains open, there must be a stipulation on EVERYONE to give further changes back.
Since you claim that this is what you want, I ask, yet again for the umpteenth time … why don’t you put this as a condition in your license? As soon as you do that you will gain the ability to use GPL code. Why won’t you do it?
You cannot claim that it would prevent commercialisation … the fact that there are literally hundreds of products using GPL code gives the lie to that. So why on earth not make yourself GPL compatible?
And GPL developers would give back too, far more give back than any of these, if you would do that one simple act (that GPL developers need to see) of putting the requirement to give code back into your license. You say you want give back, so just require it of everybody who uses your code and all would be sweet.
I told you why, many times … it is because your license does not require everyone to give code back. Therefore your license has no defense against abusive commercial interests who would take the code and rip off the unsuspecting public using it.
The amazing thing is, when it happens that “abusive commercial interests actually do take your code and rip off the unsuspecting public using it” you make not a murmur of protest, yet when GPL developers take your code and protect it against abuse and from being used to rip people off, you are up in arms over it? Puhhhhleeeeease.
Put the requirement to give code back as part of your license and all of your troubles would disappear in one fell swoop. Leave yourself open to abuse and parties will abuse you, and GPL developers can’t help you I’m afraid.
Ok GPL stand is that commercialization of source code without keeping the source open is bad. We at BSD respectfully disagree.
We believe that a company to be successful needs an edge over others to be successful. So we have BSD license.
Anyways I am going to add this clause to all my future release under BSD (because GPL camp is a bunch of cheaters and to deal with evil you have to be evil sometime. And honestly screw you GPL camp, now I see how you steal my code or try to use my code against my wishes). My code will there be forever open and will support our industries to use, innovate and grow and make beautiful products like OSX while GPL based companies keep fighting for support contracts:)
“The licence and distribution terms for any publically available
version of this code or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code
cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence
(including the GNU “Viral” General Public Licence).”
Why exactly do you disagree?
I gave you an example of how it is possible to have commercialisation of code (even GPL code) yet keep the code open. This happens very often. GPL code is being used commercially all over the world.
I also gave you an example of exactly how it is bad to close the code and commercialise it. The example was Kerberos (it was not a BSD license it was an MIT license, but the point still holds). Kerberos was adopted by Microsoft, obscured so that only Windows machines could participate in Windows networks, and then deployed so that Microsoft could charge people Client Access Licenses per machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_%28protocol%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_Access_License
How is that moral? Microsoft didn’t do any real development work, they used other people’s code without giving anything back, yet they charge people real money for NOTHING! Money for jam. Rip off.
Sigh!
Please explain how what the GPL does is evil or stealing, but actions like that described above regarding Kerberos is not evil. Please explain how the act of taking your code and putting it in a GPL project is any different to taking your code and putting it in a closed source commercial product (apart from the fact that the code is kept open and fair public access to it in perpetuity is guaranteed if it becomes GPL).
You are making no sense at all here.
You really haven’t thought this through, have you. Your proposed clause would also stop any commercial company from taking your code and using it in a commercial product released under a EULA. You have defeated yourself.
If you are in fact as clueless as your posts appear to paint you, it is doubtful that anyone would want your code in any event.
(I suspect that you are not clueless, but are merely trying to avoid the main point … which is answering the question “why don’t you require giving code back as a condition in your license, if that is what you actually want to happen”?)
Edited 2007-10-03 03:36
I think you did not get the clause at all. It says publically available version.
What this clause does is prevents anyone to release a public version of this source code with a different license. You can distribute the code as a binary or release the code under the same license.
We want the code back as long as it supports commercialization.
Think of what all companies earn from distributing GPL software combined vs let us say just one company i.e. Microsoft.
Also i believe without commercialization you get substandard products when compared to commercial products:
– Is there a better debugger than SoftIce?
– Is there a better product than VMWARE?
– Is there a better product or more successful product than Oracle or SAP?
– Is there an office suite as good as MS office?
– Is there a better product than Photoshop, Flash etc?
– A user friendly and integrated interface like OSX
The only good GPL software out there is Linux and that too it should feel lucky. When BSD was struggling with legal problems, Linux picked up.
Edited 2007-10-03 06:00
The words publically available do not mean what you think they mean.
Microsoft Word is publically available … as a member of the general public I can walk into a computer shop and buy a copy, so it is available to me.
Sorry, but no. Your proposed clause does not even mention source code or binary, and makes no distinction at all between these two forms of software programs. You invoke applicability of your clause only to versions of software programs which are available to the public.
That is all very subjective, and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.
I would differ on a few … for example, although I’d agree that MS Office has more features, OpenOffice is cross-platform and ISO standards compliant, is future-proof (you are not forced to upgrade) and has almost as many features, so IMO OpenOffice is better.
There are some FOSS software projects that are amongst the best in their area and arguably better than anything commercially available.
A small selection of examples:
Apache Web server
Squid proxy server
Python/Ruby/Perl/PHP scripting languages
GNU Compiler Collection (for its coverage of multiple programming languages over multiple platforms)
K3B CD/DVD burning software
Amarok audio player
iptables router & firewall
Akregator news feed reader
bash shell
But that is all just subjective opinion … your point?
Edited 2007-10-03 12:25
Ok it seems i generalized GPL camp too much due to people like Lemur2 and Archiesteel who probably don’t do any coding and just want other people’s work for free.
Looks like the real coders are way more honest and respectful of others as they agreed to supply their modification under a BSD compliant license as well.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2902106404.html
Lemur2 – What do you have to say now, huh? In your face i must say.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collabora…
In other words if you want to use a permissive license, then use it. If you want to use GPL, then use that. The recommendation is that it is not a good idea to dual-license “mix and match”, because it becomes unclear what you actually mean. It is fine to use BSD license code within a GPL project, because the BSD license permits it. Just ensure that you keep to all of the BSD license requirements, including keeping the license notices and maintaining correct attribution to the authors of the code.
So, if you want to allow commercialisation of your resulting code, but still ensure that the code will remain open and ensure that it is never used to rip people off, then use the GPL.
If you want to permit parties to rip people off and steal your code, then use the permissive license that permits it. Exactly why any open source programmer would want to allow this is beyond me.
For a code analysis, I just love the wording that’s used here. “..seems to be derived..” or “…do not appear to be derived…” and “…this work appears to have begun…”
Lots of usage of the word “appears” which in each context is defined as “To seem likely”. This is just refusal to admit, in positive yes or negative no format,
if the item they are referring to is true. Smoking and mirror word play. Nice.
It’s annoying to read a supposedly exhaustive and detailed review. A detailed review would give to the ability to say “…is derived…” or “…is not derived…”, yet this review can not and does not have that ability.