In the world of “free” open source software, there is no greater villain than SCO, owner of the Unix operating system. But the spread of Linux could be hurt by another group–and ironically, it’s the free-software proponents themselves, Forbes says.
Linux’s Hit Men
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This article is somewhat misleading. Surely Linksys can write proprietary, closed-source software that runs on top of a GPL’d OS? Or perhaps Linksys had made significant changes to the Linux kernel itself? The article doesn’t specify…
These slanted articles are terrible.
Why is everyone trying to be another Jerry Springer?
“Such a pity, comrade.” What a joke.
They knew the rules when they started using GPL’d source code, but now don’t want to follow them.
How would this writer feel if Linksys had used WinCE for the router, then decided not to pay Microsoft? It is the same damn thing.
If you don’t intend to follow the GPL, DON’T USE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Mutiny
The article is FUD and the problem is not GPL, if people can’t read what’s written then its their problem and they have to pay for it
To my humble knowledge GPL was not designed for commercial use in the first place… BSD license for example is a more usable option…
…is why I release all my software under the BSD license
Have we heard Linksys’ side of the story? Does that stop you from jumping to conclusions anyway? No. Maybe Linksys has not modified the GPL’ed parts they are using.
[rant about free as in GPL, free price, free liberty deleted]
If someone does not want to abide by the terms of the GPL, then they need to look to alternatives. Many coders in the free/open software world choose the GPL specifically for the fact that no one else can just close the source to it. This is why RMS created both the FSF and the GPL.
Besides, corporations are saving alot of time and money on development; all they need to do in return is share any software modifications they make.
How harsh is that?
<sarcasm>Comrade</sarcasm>
Is this an Article or Editorial?
I am sadden to see such a pathetic article linked on the top front page of OSNews. I like OSNews for the cutting edge articles & diverse discussion. I don’t agree with the all the articles & authors posted here and that is okay. This article’s author has already lost his sense of journalistic integrity & OSNews linking to it & promoting it makes me ill. His article is a troll thinnly veiled by Forbes magazine. According to the rules, we should not feed the trolls.
I will leave with some thoughts on truth & wisdom:
In one of his earliest discourses, the Buddha addressed his audience of monks and lay people and said, “You should examine my teachings thoroughly. Like a gold merchant looking to acquire pure gold, you should thoroughly go through the process of analyzing these teachings.” In a similar way, Buddha said, “It is extremely important for you to analyze and examine my teachings, and then, in the end, you can decide whether to adopt them. If there is any wisdom, you can adopt it. If there is nothing, just leave it. You do not have to accept these teachings.” Buddha said, “Do not accept my teachings because they are taught by a King, or a Prince. Do not accept them because they are taught by someone called “Buddha.” However, accept them if they are logical, if they are reasonable, if there is wisdom in them, and if there is some benefit.”
I’ve just read about this article at slashdot even thou the warned about it i just read it anyway. However, i’ve never read anything written by Forbes (or the Forbes Magazine) before, but i was under the impression that it is a “good” Magazine like the german Spiegel (“mirror”), Focus or Stern (“star”) which have a pretty good reputation. Their Journalists usually try to get both sides of a Story and usually tell them without the personal opinion of the Authors. They just do Reports of Facts and explicitly mark their “Comments” as opinion pieces. But so far i’ve never read in any of these three Magazines (which i read pretty much regulary) so much garbage in such one short article as in this one from Forbes. So it seems Forbes’ Reporters are clearly not much better than the goons of the Boulevard Press. What a shame …
The guy who wrote the archive is a stupid or a troll.
Why the Free Software Fundation should not prosecute whoever violates their intelectual property?????
Law it’s the same for everybody (or at least it should)
What happens here is that lot of private companies like to use GPL software to make money for free.
I do not know the details of the Linksys case, but for sure the Free Software Fundation is not going after them for sport.
If you want to use GPL’ed software and violate the license do not complain.
And for the trolls, the GPL does not avoid you to create and add propietary stuff to a GPL product, what the GPL doesn’t allow you to do is to create propietary stuff using modificated free software (let’s say 99% free 1% propietary) and locking the source code.
This is going to be a big problem for OSS. What company is going to want to figure out which part it has to open up and which part it doesn’t?
Profits matter…it’s what pays people…if a company has to worry about legal expenses (as who is going to indemnify them?) why would they use it?
The point of the article is that the open source foundation is it’s own worst enemy.
The impression this guy gives is that “free” software should be free to corporations to abuse as they see fit without complying to the contract that goes with the “free” software.
The FSF isn’t standing in the way of free software adoption, it’s standing in the way of theft of that software.
As usual, corporations want something for nothing, and then they bitch about it via corporate whores like this author, when they can’t steal for profit.
Umm…why is that any harder than figuring out your responsibilities with any other bit of code you license?
If they don’t want to abide by the GPL then don’t use GPL’ed code in your products.
…is why I release all my software under the BSD license
Uh, what does it change for you, personally, if you release it under a BSD or GPL license? Unless you get personal gratification out of the fact that someone can use your code without contributing any changes back, I really don’t see what you, as a developer, gain out of preferring BSD over GPL.
Anonytroll
No. Maybe Linksys has not modified the GPL’ed parts they are using.
Whether they have modified it or not, if they distribute GPL software they must provide access to machine-readable source code.
ucedac
Why the Free Software Fundation should not prosecute whoever violates their intelectual property?????
Actually, it’s not the IP of the FSF, but of the programmers who coded it. The FSF acts as a watchdog to make sure people do not infringe on other’s people IP as distributed under the GPL.
thats why the gpl is no good. bsd license is the best. I will never ever use the GPL for any reason. If a product is GPL, i will never use it as a product to sell.
Uh, what does it change for you, personally, if you release it under a BSD or GPL license?
It means my software is truly free, unlike the horrible semantics that have been applied to the term “free software” by the GPL mongers out there. It is free for anyone to use for whatever purpose they see fit, provided they give me credit for it.
Unless you get personal gratification out of the fact that someone can use your code without contributing any changes back, I really don’t see what you, as a developer, gain out of preferring BSD over GPL.
Ideological superiority.
The “free software” zealots lambasting this article fail to see what it’s trying to do: warn businesses about the dangers of including GPL’d products in their supply chain (who do you think is reading Forbes magazine after all). The example they give is of Cisco purchasing another company, Linksys, who was using a product of another company, Broadcom, in the supply chain for the production of another product, only to discover that because Broadcom was using GPL’d software without re-releasing their modifications, they were now being sued by the FSF. What exactly did Cisco do wrong here, and what are they expected to do, coerce Broadcom into releasing the source code, or drop the product line entirely until they can develop a solution that doesn’t involve GPL software? In either case this is horrible news for Cisco, who in and of themselves isn’t doing anything wrong here.
It seems their mistake was depending on a supplier that chose to improperly use “free software”. In my opinion if you are attaching the moniker “free” to software, this shouldn’t be possible, and it seems many businesses are confused by these horrible semantics as well.
So yes, this article is a wake up call to businesses about the dangers of using GPL’d software anywhere in their supply chain.
No one is bothered by the fact that the FSF is willing to condone GPL violations if they are given a large enough payoff?
GC wrote:
Actually, it’s not the IP of the FSF, but of the programmers who coded it. The FSF acts as a watchdog to make sure people do not infringe on other’s people IP as distributed under the GPL.
I don’t believe so. FSF requires that authors who contribute code to GNU software assign copyright to the FSF. This is a good thing. It means that the FSF has authority to and will defend the software’s license.
No… Companies settle out of court all the time. If it had gone to trial, OpenTV could’ve ended up paying quite a bit more.
Every chance they get they steal and think nothing about it. But when they’re on the other side, being stolen from, they send out subpenas and claim civilization will fall.
The GPL should be modified to charge corporations and leave the software free for personal use only.
This is going to be a big problem for OSS. What company is going to want to figure out which part it has to open up and which part it doesn’t?
Easy: if it used other people’s GPL’ed source code to write the source code of a program, then they have to open up those programs. If they don’t want to have to open up the code, then they shouldn’t use open source code.
Profits matter…it’s what pays people…if a company has to worry about legal expenses (as who is going to indemnify them?) why would they use it?
I think you’re confusing using GPLed Software with programming software using GPLed source code as a base. The two things are completely different, and your apparent confustion of the two leads you to erroneous conclusions.
The point of the article is that the open source foudation is it’s own worst enemy.
And as such it is erroneous as well. The FSF foundation is there to protect the copyrights of those who distribute their software under the GPL.
If you don’t want to open up your code, don’t base your software on open source code – that’s pretty simple! It doesn’t mean that you can’t write software for an GPLed OS, such as Linux, or even that you can’t link to LGPLed libraries. The issue here is using the work of others to develop your own programs and the respect of the license under which that work is available.
No… Companies settle out of court all the time. If it had gone to trial, OpenTV could’ve ended up paying quite a bit more.
Or the GPL could have been ruled invalid…
The real question is how much of that money went to the programmers of the code in question as opposed to the FSF itself…
It means my software is truly free, unlike the horrible semantics that have been applied to the term “free software” by the GPL mongers out there. It is free for anyone to use for whatever purpose they see fit, provided they give me credit for it.
The GPL is no less free. The only difference is that you can’t can take away the freedom of users to redistribute the work. The only thing the BSD gives over the GPL is the ability to “unfree” derived code. In other words, it gives the opportunity to others to get filthy rich out of your work without giving anything back, neither to you or the community.
Ideological superiority.
That’s a bit arrogant, isn’t it? I’d say the two licenses are different, not that one is superior to the other. In any case, you, as a developer, do not get anything tangible more from one or the other.
Just out of curiosity, what software have your released under the BSD license?
The real question is how much of that money went to the programmers of the code in question as opposed to the FSF itself…
About as much as would go to any other company’s programmers if that company sues another party for copyright infringement: none. The copyright holder (almost always the company for which the programmer works) gets the money. In this case, that is the FSF. If the programmer doesn’t like that, they shouldn’t write GPL’ed code.
Uh, what does it change for you, personally, if you release it under a BSD or GPL license?
I also forgot to mention, by using the BSD license I can develop an application can be linked against free (for those of you promoting the bizarre “free software” semantics, no, this isn’t “free as in beer”) but not open source libraries such as the non-commercial version of Qt/Windows, or completely closed source commercial libraries while keeping the code to my program open. (Of course there is a port of the GPL’d Qt 3 codebase to Windows as well, although it pales in an aesthetic and usability perspective compared to Trolltech’s release)
I also prefer having a license that can be easily interpreted by anyone as opposed to the convoluted, ambiguous legalese nightmare which is the GPL. Can you link code distributed under the (original) BSD license with a GPL library? Trolltech says you can with Qt, RMS says you can’t period. ESR will let you do it with procmail, by specifically amending the GPL to allow it.
This is the viral nature of the GPL… everyone with a decent understanding of it is afraid to touch it unless they’re willing to submit and release their software under the GPL as well…
So yes, this article is a wake up call to businesses about the dangers of using GPL’d software anywhere in their supply chain.
Here you’re being intellectually dishonest, by failing to make the difference between using GPL’ed software, and programming using GPL’ed source code. The former doesn’t require any obligations on the user’s part. The latter only requires opening up the source code if the GPLed-based software is distributed.
Why must anti-GPL zealots always distort the truth?
I think they hit the nail on the head. After all hasn’t rms said on numerous occasions that all software should be open source?
Why must anti-GPL zealots always distort the truth?
Why must GPL zealots always argue semantics?
Bascule wrote:
No one is bothered by the fact that the FSF is willing to condone GPL violations if they are given a large enough payoff?
Huh? FSF does not condone GPL violations on their software. The article said:
According to Free Software Foundation Executive Director Bradley Kuhn, the foundation is demanding that Cisco and Broadcom either a) rip out all the Linux code in the router and use some other operating system, or b) make their code available to the entire world.
And if they balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. “We defend the rights protected by the GPL license,” he says. “We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share and share alike, we can make them obey the rules.”
and
The 12-employee Free Software Foundation has limited resources. So it seeks donations. And sometimes it collects money from companies it has busted.
and
The drama took months to resolve and ended with OpenTV writing a check for $65,000 to the Free Software Foundation. “They paid us a very substantial payment for our time and trouble,” Moglen says.
and
But the Free Software Foundation doesn’t want royalties–it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.
The FSF doesn’t bend and they don’t deal. Obey the license or don’t use the software. That’s it. That’s all.
Such companies as CISCO with billions in pocket usually have horrible team of lawyers and other around-IT/IP specialists.
This is normal for bug corporations. It’s not like a team of 2 dot-com teenagers.
Ans this case is fault of that team, showing their incompetence in nowadays situation.
If you obtain property, you usually analyze all related things, like obligations, contracts with third parties etc.
GPL is just another strict kind of property with its obligations, and is company personell cannot deal with it, inspite it may bring profit in case of proper use, such peronell mast be layed off. Or sent to listen some courses or sit a bit in libraries.
This is nothing about evilness of GPL or FSF, rather about lazyness or ignorance of nowadays corporate world.
They have money in the bank, collected from either contributors (aka clients who wanted enforcement done) or settlements. They got money from open tv, did they give it to the people who wrote the gpl code otv used or did they keep it? Hmm lets see, they’re a non profit, with money in the bank, my guess is they kept the pay out. btw otv still uses gpl code, last I heard anyway. And since it still isn’t open fsf did take a bribe and walked away. Beacon of integrity is what they are.
“The GPL should be modified to charge corporations and leave the software free for personal use only. ”
I agree 100%. This is why I release my software in binary mode only – I don’t want to work for nothing for people whom I despise. And that’s sad because intellectual exchange is harmed. The fight between the corporations and the GPL is basically a fight between stupidity and knowledge… and stupidity is winning.
Such companies as CISCO with billions in pocket usually have horrible team of lawyers and other around-IT/IP specialists. This is normal for bug corporations. It’s not like a team of 2 dot-com teenagers. Ans this case is fault of that team, showing their incompetence in nowadays situation.
Are you saying something to the effect that Cisco would’ve forestalled a $500 million merger with Linksys had their lawyers managed to discover this GPL issue with one of Linksys’s suppliers?
btw otv still uses gpl code, last I heard anyway.
Last you heard? How about backing that statement up with actual proof rather than hearsay…
They got money from open tv, did they give it to the people who wrote the gpl code otv used or did they keep it?
See my comment a ways up the page. FSF owns the copyright, they keep the money. If IBM sues another company for IP theft, they are under no obligation to let it flow down to the people who created the IP for them. They own the copyright, they keep the money.
“The GPL should be modified to charge corporations and leave the software free for personal use only. ”
I agree 100%. This is why I release my software in binary mode only – I don’t want to work for nothing for people whom I despise. And that’s sad because intellectual exchange is harmed. The fight between the corporations and the GPL is basically a fight between stupidity and knowledge… and stupidity is winning.
Had the developers of this product thought ahead of time they may have been able to avoid this trouble. 1) use a BSD licensed system instead 2) run proprietary software on top of GPLed software without touching the GPLed stuff. Look at IBM. They seem to be doing just fine with the GPL. It’s a sticky issue when you’re a for-profit company, but if you pay close attention to details you can work with it. They should have done homework on this just as they would have for any other license.
That said, Cisco is not a “bad guy” here. I’m sure that a soulution can be reached without burning bridges between Cisco and Linux communities. Comparing this to the crap SCO has pulled is a bunch of FUD.
The problem is not that a little bit of GPL’d code has possibly crept into the products.
The problem is that those routers are an embedded Linux kernel and drivers+ethernet+a power supply, and very little else.
So I think it’s morally and legally right that the FSF want to have a look at their own code, even if just to see what horrible hacks have been carried out on it.
“In the world of “free” open source software, there is no greater villain than SCO, owner of the Unix operating system.”
Says, who? Wtf? Really, i’m wondering who the hell thinks s/he’s so Great and Smart to speak up for the millions who are in the ”world of free open source software”, whatever that last ”world” may be, cause i think we’re still all humans one planet uuuhh? Has this so called ”free open source software world” spoken up they see SCO as a great villain? Self-fullfilling prophecy. Torvalds has certainly not, for example. ESR, kinda has. I think the opinions are spreaded at least, and if you say such a thing, you should proof it. Else, it’s plain arrogance.
Personally, i don’t fear SCO at all. They’re the outside. And have intentions to do this so, else they wouldn’t blow it up so much. What i fear (and am very eager to know) more is the unknown, the inside. Because that’s where the real games are played. Politics. Secret discussions. US gov. trying to shove up patents in Europe (authentic). All these games, the BSD license walks away from IMO (!). They let themselves be exploited by bigger boys and girls. And in the end they will either go down together with the GPL or cooperate with the games, taken the earlier described situation about politics is not changed.
Like i said, i do not fear SCO much. What i fear more is patents (also hurts BSD license), corrupt judges, effects of FUD, and finally the undescribed political games which might turn against opensource, at least, that’s what MS wants.
“thats why the gpl is no good. bsd license is the best. I will never ever use the GPL for any reason. If a product is GPL, i will never use it as a product to sell.”
Whatever you wish, it’s your choice. GPL software CAN be legally sold, though. Anyway, how do does Our Holyness “I will never ever use the GPL for any reason” compile his/her BSD licensed software? Perhaps with this utility called ‘GCC’?
Anyway, how do does Our Holyness “I will never ever use the GPL for any reason” compile his/her BSD licensed software? Perhaps with this utility called ‘GCC’?
The BSD developers are typically sane enough to avoid needless duplication of effort, unlike GNU projects such as LSH and GNUTLS, which seem to exist for no other reason than the GNU zealots can’t stand having ubiquitous BSD licensed standard applications/libraries without a GPL counterpart.
Whether they have modified it or not, if they distribute GPL software they must provide access to machine-readable source code.
Please provide some proof that distributors of unmodified GPL source are responsible for providing the source. If I offer a download of a Redhat ISO, am I required to get you the source if you ask? I doubt it.
So the source is available at kernel.org, and gnu.org.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPubl…
Only mentions modified software.
“unlike GNU projects such as LSH and GNUTLS, which seem to exist for no other reason than the GNU zealots can’t stand having ubiquitous BSD licensed standard applications/libraries without a GPL counterpart.”
Bzzzt, wrong!
1) LSH has existed *before* OpenSSH. So now you’re blaming them for creating an implementation before OpenSSH existed?
2) If people *want* to create a new SSL implementation, in their free time, for fun, *then what is wrong with that?!* Your ignorant comment totally violates fundamental human rights. If I want to create yet another Notepad clone then I have every right to do so!
1) LSH has existed *before* OpenSSH. So now you’re blaming them for creating an implementation before OpenSSH existed?
Oh please, OpenSSH is a fork of Tatu Ylonen’s original BSD licensed ssh codebase, which existed long before LSH.
(and for the record, I never said OpenSSH…)
2) If people *want* to create a new SSL implementation, in their free time, for fun, *then what is wrong with that?!* Your ignorant comment totally violates fundamental human rights.
As you’ve completely lost view of the point being argued, let me reiterate: the developers of the *BSD operating systems use gcc because it is the best tool for the job. Attempting to bring any of the BSD licensed C compliers such as TenDRA up to the same caliber of performance and feature set as gcc would be a considerable yet pointless development effort as gcc fits its niche quite well. (furthermore TenDRA has considerably different design goals from gcc)
“The BSD developers are typically sane enough to avoid needless duplication of effort, unlike GNU projects such as LSH and GNUTLS, which seem to exist for no other reason than the GNU zealots can’t stand having ubiquitous BSD licensed standard applications/libraries without a GPL counterpart.”
OpenSSH is beeing included in several commercial products. For free for the commercial product packagers, and they don’t provide the new source with it. They don’t have to. Do you like it? Would you contribute YOUR code to the same project so the same can happen to yours? Actually, do you like Theo? Also, OpenSSL been in a drip because of Sun’s ECC, which is currently NP. You see? Various reasons to fork, or create your own. You don’t have to agree with any of them, you just have to put your own ideals aside for about, let’s say 15 seconds, and then imagine how someone could possibly think of this.
What’s the problem, don’t like forking? or competition perhaps? Then, i don’t understand why you’d be pro-BSD license at all. You can’t fork GPL to BSD, but some GPL people do allow (parts) of their code to be rewritten to a BSD project. You just have to ask.
Regarding GCC, you’re just wrong, because there’s a BSD licensed C compiler, which is called TenDRA. Perhaps you’ll like it.
I agree that, if you haven’t modified the source then you, personally, shouldn’t have to make the source available, since it already is available somewhere else. However I’m not 100% that this is how the FSF sees it. I’d have to re-read the GPL to see how this goes.
In any case, this is irrelevant to the current discussion: if Linksys hasn’t modified the source code, then they shouldn’t have a problem with making it available on their web site (or on a floppy disk inside the router’s box). If they did modify the code, then they are required by law to provide it, else they do not agree to the terms under which the software was made available.
OpenSSH is beeing included in several commercial products. For free for the commercial product packagers, and they don’t provide the new source with it. They don’t have to. Do you like it? Would you contribute YOUR code to the same project so the same can happen to yours?
I don’t know what the project in question is…
However, I would love nothing more than for Microsoft to take my BSD licensed code and integrate it into Windows/Internet Explorer.
What’s the problem, don’t like forking? or competition perhaps?
Please read my previous comments; had you done so I see no way you could’ve come to this conclusion. Again, the point being made was about needless duplication of effort. (please see later in this post about this issue specifically in regards to gcc vs. TenDRA)
Regarding GCC, you’re just wrong, because there’s a BSD licensed C compiler, which is called TenDRA.
Boy, if only you would’ve reloaded the page before making that statement…
If you like I can also dig through several of my previous posts on the gcc vs. TenDRA issue.
TenDRA is not fit as a general purpose compiler in the same way that gcc is, especially for C++ code. Furthermore, TenDRA was originally a commercial product that was released under the BSD license; it was not duplication of effort by BSD license advocates.
“Why must anti-GPL zealots always distort the truth?”
Why must GPL zealots always argue semantics?
Well, because anti-GPL zealots distort the truth! 🙂
BTW, I am not a GPL zealot. I appreciate the license for what it has brought the world (i.e. Linux), but I don’t think it is the only acceptable license. In other words, there’s only one zealot here, and it’s you.
Read it here:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003-10-14-024-26-OS-LL
Kinda confused, I’m not a business savvy kinda person.
If the FSF is the one to whom settlements go when they take companies to court over inclusion of GPL code, then are they also the ones who are liable if GPL code contains proprietary code (Like the SCO allegations)?
If not then it seems a little perverse that the FSF should hold copywright (For free) on software they haven’t written, benefit from holding that copyright (Court settlements) and have no responsibility whatsoever for the content of the code they hold the copyright to.
Mr Cthulhu,
It’s quite relevant. It’s very possible that Linksys is distributing non-modified GPL’ed binaries, that do not need the source to be available. The FSF foundation has not stated otherwise, and is probably asking to see the source to verify it wasn’t modified. Since Linksys is not required to do so, and (rightfully) doesn’t want to be bullied by the FSF – the negotiations have stalled. That is my view from the outside. But you can spew that they have to release the source no matter what, for as long as you like.
It’s very possible that Linksys is distributing non-modified GPL’ed binaries, that do not need the source to be available.
No, it’s really not.
First, Broadcom did give Linksys what was allegedly the modified source code they were using. This was followed by this post to the LKML, in which someone attempted to build the source code Linksys released (and discovered large portions were missing):
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0309.3/0904.html
Don’t take this seriously. Forbes is always PooPooing opensource. They are part of the old economy and not doing to well their either.
Just because someone failed to build the source, I am supposed to assume that all the source was not available? Perhaps they don’t have the correct development environment, or proper versions of the libraries needed. Probably could be fixed with an apt-blah or remerge blah.
Just because someone failed to build the source, I am supposed to assume that all the source was not available?
Perhaps they don’t have the correct development environment, or proper versions of the libraries needed.
Please click the link. They very clearly demonstrate that large portions of the code provided by Linksys are missing (it’s a modified Linux kernel tree)
It’s not clear that you don’t have to distribute source if you didn’t modify the sources. Look at this item from the GPL faq link you submitted earlier:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInte…
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferent…
Here they do not mention “modified” source code. Honestly, Linksys’ position is not defendable. You can’t just say: “we haven’t modified the code” and then refuse to let anyone verify.
On another point, contrary to what some people have said here, the FSF doesn’t become the copyright holder of a piece of software released under the GPL. What they do is ask (not force) people who modify FSF-copyrighted program to assign the copyright to the FSF. Otherwise, if I create a program from scratch and decide to release it under the GPL, I am still the copyright holder. I also don’t need the FSF to defend my program (witness IBM suing SCO for GPL violations).
Again, the answers can be found in the GPL faq:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit
See also the third paragraph here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
In short, you remain copyright holder of your contributions.
with enforcing their own licence? The piece seems to imply the FSF should turn a blind eye to blantent abuse and theft, that by enforcing their own freaking license their some how worse then SCO. How utterly bizare. If it were anyone else imforcing a proprietary license of some sort I’m sure they wouldn’t be bad guys at all, but victims. Sigh… While I prefer the GPL I’m sometimes leary of pure-doctrine FSF types, yet I think their a necessary counterbalance to everything. Finally, someone said that if a company has not made any changes to the code they shouldn’t have to release the source code, theres a huge problem with that – how the hell do you know they hadn’t changed anything? Take their word for it? By opening it, even if you didn’t touch a thing, your keeping honest and providing evidence. Finally, to Bascule – I typically love reading your posts, you seem to be among the most intelligent folks on here – but here I disagree. If the GPL were so horribly bad for business why are SGI, HP, Dell, IBM, People Soft, Computer Associates, Sun, and hundreds more shipping GPL based products? It really honestly can’t be that bad else none of this would exist, Linux wouldn’t be as large as it is, and BSD would rule the free unix market. It *is* more difficult perhaps then a BSD license to comply with, but far, far from impossible. The GPL, to me, seems very very simple – if you use it, release the code – if you change it, release the code. Period. Difficult? *shrugs* Finally to cover my ass, I like BSD and its license – I wasn’t trying to flame, I recently purchased a G5 and I’m loving Mac OS X more then I thought, though I still intend to run Linux on it (along side OS X) once theres a port. 😉
The piece seems to imply the FSF should turn a blind eye to blantent abuse and theft
It does? How, and where?
There were a number of incorrect implecations in the piece, namely that that the FSF and Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom aren’t working together to peacefully resolve the dispute, which they certainly are, as can be evidenced from the FSF’s take which is available at the URL Great Cthulhu pasted:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003-10-14-024-26-OS-LL
>>It does? How, and where?
Did ya read the article? 😉
Heres two choice quotes –
“In the world of “free” open source software, there is no greater villain than SCO, owner of the Unix operating system.”
and then
“But the spread of Linux could be hurt by another group–and ironically, it’s the free-software proponents themselves.”
and how are we being hurt? Because the FSF is persuing GPL violations. Dude, its strongly implying we should just allow theft – that by enforcing our chosen license we’re worse then SCO. It implies, IMHO, that we’re crippling ourselves by enforcement. The damned thing leaves me flabbergasted.
“I don’t know what the project in question is…”
For me, none.
“However, I would love nothing more than for Microsoft to take my BSD licensed code and integrate it into Windows/Internet Explorer.”
Your choice. So, can you imagine people would NOT want, for example, Microsoft to do this? Ok? Thanks. Cause that’s my point. Personally, i don’t like Microsoft. They go beyond my ideals. I don’t like the ”American Way” (plutocratic capitalism), and i will not support it. We probly differ for that…
Futher, i don’t see what your problem is with GPL projects forking your -or any- BSD code. One who releases it under BSD license has no right to whine at all. I release documents under PD and i don’t whine either if someone uses them. Cause i thought about that. Same counts when Microsoft uses your code, which you appear to like. So, wtf is your problem? Can you describe it in a few sentences, because i have lost your point.
I’ve never used TenDRA so i don’t know how good it is or so., just readed a bit about it. GPL also ”invents” and ”improves” new software instead of ”stealing” code from BSD licensed software, which BSD licensed software and closed source software companies just as well do also. So, what’s your point?
You actually like it when Microsoft uses your BSD code, but don’t like it when a GNU projects forks it?
I am going to take a guess here and say that this has something to do with 802.11g. As far as I know there are no Linux drivers for it yet this Linksys router is used for 802.11g wireless routing. If this is the case, then they are witholding source-code to the 802.11g drivers. Considering the allegations I would not be surprised to find out that it was compiled into the kernel and therefore subject to the GPL. Personally I don’t see a problem with the FSF going after Cisco. If you want to use GPL software then you must follow the license. I don’t think anyone would be bitching if this was about a propietary company suing another company over stolen code.
Well I guess I’d better put in my two cents, since I see a completely rational (and personally shared) line of thinking poo-poo-ed to death by a lot of the same pro-GPL, pro-Linux, slashdotter arguments over and over again.
I find it so silly that people get bold enough with their hopelessly misguided ideas of utopia of free software that they try to bend the universe to fit into such a naive fantasy. In newsgroups, mailing lists, and blogs, these free software ideas grow and mature, but without the ties of reality, drift away into a logically self-consistent yet hopelessly flawed alternative reality that can never work in our universe.
I have to admit that I think free software advocates live in a dream world. These ideas, this sea of a mental model, laps against the shore of reality, and these first collisions are manifested in this Forbes article. The ideal, the made-up, comes into contact with reality, with money, with business, and with human nature.
Do you not see the beginnings of the clash between this made up ideology and the real world? This article, as Bascule tried to point out, was supposed to be a wake up call, to point out that human nature, capitalism, and the GPL have incompatibilities that are real and non-trivial. It was supposed to shed a light on the fact that the FSF is involved in enforcement, and that the GPL can get involved in many situations, especially very touchy things such as acquisitions (as Bascule tried to point out, but was ignored). The FSF has 40-50 enforcement operations going on at a time, and has had hundreds in the past. The article is trying to demonstrate that it all isn’t a utopia…and that not all players play fair.
I could go on, and on, but why waste my time? Your minds are made up. Have fun in your utopia guys.
Futher, i don’t see what your problem is with GPL projects ]forking your -or any- BSD code. […] You actually like it when Microsoft uses your BSD code, but don’t like it when a GNU projects forks it?
I don’t know what project you’re talking about, and for that matter I don’t remember making any statements about forks. The only fork I mentioned was OpenSSH’s fork of the original ssh codebase, both of which are BSD licensed.
My latest point in this very tangential discussion was that GNU proponents always seem to have a horrible case of NIH when it comes to projects that are released under a different license than the GPL, but the same behaviour is not exhibited by the BSD side, who happily use GPL applications when they’re the right tool for the job, most notably gcc. To do otherwise would be a counterproductive waste of time. Thus the “BSD depends on the GPL because it doesn’t even have a BSD licensed compiler” argument which originally started this whole interminable thread of posts is entirely irrelevant; it’s all free software, it’s just BSD licensed software is *significantly* more free than GPL software.
before I was horribly sidetracked is that the GPL is a bad choice for business. This article should serve as a wakeup call to the CIOs of the world that may be considering the use of GPLed software in their products for whatever reason; most likely because of Linux’s name recognition. From a legal perspective, this is clearly a case in which BSD licensed software should have been used instead of GPL software; FreeBSD also has a framework for 802.11a/g drivers, and as the drivers being used were obviously created in-house there’s no compelling technical reason for them not to use FreeBSD over Linux. The decision to use Linux was most likely the result of Linux advocates within the company peddling a name their CIO recognized. I certainly hope Broadcom has enough business sense to discipline/fire the individuals involved, and I hope they will re-evaluate their decision to use Linux as the kernel for these devices.
“what does it change for you, personally, if you release it under a BSD or GPL license?”
Simple answer : get personal gratification out of the fact that someone can use your code.
Any other “gains” for the developers you may see from any GPL’ed source (instead of BSD’ed) are pure illusion.
I code for fun. And I’m happy to think that my code can be useful for somebody else, be it a children or a top corporation. I don’t care, as long as I’m credited for the original piece of code …
Look at the title of the article again. Look at the “comrades” comment the writer made. And this article is supposed to be a wake up call? This more of a an Op/Ed than it is a news article, and seeing that the guy only seems to know the basics of what he’s talking about, why would his opinion matter to anybody? Because he writes for Forbes? Is that all it takes?
The guy might know about the business world, but how much do you think he knows about Linux, the GPL or the FSF? Probably just enough to scratch out a short piece. Hell, I could do that…
It may be a raw deal for them, but that’s part of the risk you take when making an acquisition, is it not? Whatever they have to pay the FSF will be a pittance compared to the half billion they spent on Linksys…just another cost of doing business…
We’re talking politics now. WHAT one sees as FREEDOM the other SEES as EXPLOITATION! What’s ”free”? You live in the land of the ”free”, right? Is everybody ”free” up there? Is one more ”free” because s/he has have to less tax than say in another country? Hard to define it all.
Imo, this world is not ready for en mass this ”freedom” of the BSD license. If it’s open, you keep it open. That is where the BSD license fails. It fails to protect it’s own ”freedom” it provides, thus it allows itself to be exploited and to be changed from open to close, yet you say you have no problem when Microsoft does this, but when it happens with GPL, it’s a problem according to you (you evaded this in your previous comment). How does BSD license in the end drive against hierarchy and exploitation, how does it keep the freedoms it’s developers fought for ”free”? It doesn’t, when other people who are less social (and more egoistic) get involved. BSD looks more free, but human mankind currently cannot handle this freedom because, among others, of the current hierarchies in this world.
Thus BSD gets exploited for interests B-E-Y-O-N-D ”freedom”. Having the ”freedom” to cary a nuke in your bag which you can fire off in the middle of a city isn’t a great ”freedom” either, is it? Well, there we are, ”freedom” is more complex then you like to put the image of it, with ”BSD licensed software is *significantly* more free than GPL software”. Too simplistic.
Already are small companies and NGO’s (who have both to compete with very big fellows) using Linux which simply costs less than Windows. This i just the start of it all. We have a long way to go…
Welcome to my world: the world of the firmware engineer.
GPL code I can’t use at work.
LGPL code is much less restrictive, though I havent seen a piece of LGPL code I can use yet (i design firmware, remember.)
BSD licensed code is basically public domain.
IF Linksys violated the GPL, linksys’ lawyers must be stupid to have let this code go out the door or are ignorant of what their developers are doing.
I guess we’ll find out what the deal is in court.
Linksys is no longer linksys, AFAIK they got bought by Cisco.
GPL is a pretty strict license, but its terms are pretty clear (and if they’re not clear, send an email to the GNU people and tell them what code you want to use and how you want to use it–I’m sure they’ll make it clear whether or not your “new software product” would violate the GPL.
They are hobbled by a conventional mindset, which may
work fine for most subjects they cover, will fall short
in seeing all the pluses and minuses of something like
the GPL.
In short they are reflexive idealogues, overly attatched
to old paradigms.
“Welcome to my world: the world of the firmware engineer.
GPL code I can’t use at work.
LGPL code is much less restrictive, though I havent seen a piece of LGPL code I can use yet (i design firmware, remember.)”
Why can’t you use GPL? You just have to follow the license. That’s all. IOW, if you don’t want to share your source, why should a customer trust your binaries then? Why should one trust one’s conclusions without the arguments or analysis beeing open? (:
Transparency is a Good Thing.
Simple answer : get personal gratification out of the fact that someone can use your code.[…]I code for fun. And I’m happy to think that my code can be useful for somebody else, be it a children or a top corporation. I don’t care, as long as I’m credited for the original piece of code …
You’ll get all of that out of the GPL as well, you know? If personal gratification comes from the fact that someone can use your code, doesn’t more gratification come from the fact that more people will use your code? It seems to me that the GPL is a better bet to disseminate your code, as it cannot be made un-free through modifications…but then again, it’s a matter of personal choice. I just don’t get that some people will poo-poo on the GPL just because the code cannot be made proprietary later on. Seriously, I don’t get it.
jizzles
a wake up call, to point out that human nature, capitalism, and the GPL have incompatibilities
I agree with you that human nature and capitalism have incompatibilities – which is why there are practically no “pure” capitalist nations in the world today. The U.S. itself, while it boast at being a capitalist nation, is in fact quite interventionist – which is a good thing, otherwise there would be no computers or Internet today.
Linux and other GPL software are “disruptive” technologies, because they force enterprises to adapt and change their business models. It is not that Linux is not enterprise-friendly, on the contrary it can help businesses save a bundle. Why do you think 70% of Wall Street banking firms now use Linux? Would you say that Wall Street is anti-capitalist?
Linux can be a threat to proprietary software vendors, though, in particular proprietary OS vendors. But, hey, that’s life – they’ll just have to adapt!
“”I am going to take a guess here and say that this has something to do with 802.11g. As far as I know there are no Linux drivers for it yet this Linksys router is used for 802.11g wireless routing. If this is the case, then they are witholding source-code to the 802.11g drivers. “”
I don’t really get this. Surely they could have taken the Nvidia route to maintain a closed source binary.
it’s just BSD licensed software is *significantly* more free than GPL software
For who? GPL’ed software is (can be) significantly more free than software making us of BSDL code – for the end user. It’s fine having an opinion, but pretending it’s a fact when it clearly isn’t tips you over the line into zealot territory.
The decision to use Linux was most likely the result of Linux advocates within the company peddling a name their CIO recognized.
There is no basis to make such a claim.
there’s no compelling technical reason for them not to use FreeBSD over Linux
FreeBSD doesn’t have a functioning MIPS port.
If it’s free, its free to everyone. Users of free software have 4 basic freedoms as proposed by the free software foundation (aka, RMS).
# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
If it’s open, it is specific about who it’s open to. The source to Microsoft Word is open to certain MS employees, but isn’t Open to you, me, or 99.9% of all other human beings on earth.
Libre freedom trancends heirarchiel systems. Openness plays very well in a system of heirarchiel control. In fact, it relies soly on this word alone.
“The decision to use Linux was most likely the result of Linux advocates within the company peddling a name their CIO recognized.”
There is no basis to make such a claim.
Well, regardless it’s clear that the upper management did not understand the ramifications of using GPL software (or otherwise Linksys and Baycom would not be involved in this lawsuit to begin with) It’s also clear that for what Broadcom/Linksys were attempting to do (linking closed, in-house source code with an open source kernel) a BSD licensed kernel would’ve been a much better decision in hindsight.
FreeBSD doesn’t have a functioning MIPS port.
The decision to use MIPS was most likely made after the decision to use Linux (I’m not certain if they are using OpenRG but that would dictate them using MIPS) Had they decided to use FreeBSD over Linux there are a number of low cost, low power x86 CPUs available for this purpose, such as any of VIA’s Nehemiah core procesors.
Of course, they could have simply used NetBSD on MIPS as well…
“Are you saying something to the effect that Cisco would’ve forestalled a $500 million merger with Linksys had their lawyers managed to discover this GPL issue with one of Linksys’s suppliers?”
I’m a lawyer in the U.S. who has worked on one large corporate merger and reviewed the aftermath of a couple of others. The answer to your question above, Bascule, is yes.
First, U.S. law requires a company that is acquiring another to perform something called “due diligence,” which involves an exceedingly thorough examination of everything that might conceivably have any impact on the proposed transaction. Also, U.S. securities (stock transactions) law requires a company to disclose publicly items which may materially affect the company’s value/business/stock price. Every public company must receive independent audits, during which the auditors are required to thoroughly investigate and publicly disclose anything which might have a material effect on the company’s finances. For a company the size of Cisco doing a half billion dollar acquisition, we are talking about hundreds of people – lawyers, auditors, businessmen and engineers – working for most of a year or longer. The provisions of all contracts potentially having a material impact on the value of the property of the company to be acquired, *especially* intellectual property licensing agreements of a technology company, must be thoroughly examined. A large company gets no free pass for licensing violations – the time and effort put into examining contracts, including licenses, must be commensurate with the size of the task.
In this case, such an examination should have found that the proposed $500 million acquisition might very well not be *worth* $500 million, and raised serious questions about whether to continue with the transaction. Either a sufficiently thorough examination was not done, or such an examination was done but the potentially material matter of the license violation was not disclosed. In either case, IMO the FSF appears quite reasonable about this matter. If the value of Linksys as an acquisition is called into question and Cisco’s stock price declines, we will see whether their stockholders (the types of people who read, edit, and no doubt write for Forbes magazine) will be so charitable.
It’s not a wakeup call to business thinking about using GPL software: it’s a wakeup call to the ones that doesn’t want to code the GPL way while using them.
The easiest way for a business to avoid GPL license issues when using free software as part of their products is to avoid GPL software altogether. Apple certainly figured that out.
That isn’t to say that Apple doesn’t use GPL software, that’s just to say that they tend to use BSD licensed tools first whenever they are available, as opposed to GPL’d counterparts…
“Avoid GPL software altogether” is not quite the same thing as “use BSD licensed tools first whenever they are available”, is it…
Samba is GPL, and yet companies would not hesitate to use it because of its license. From a commercial point of view, Samba is beneficial for the bottom line of a lot of companies – so it makes economic sense. If I recall correctly, Samba is used with OS X – it is even used with the BSDs, imagine that!
Apache has its own license, but it’s very similar to the GPL. It certainly is closer to the GPL than to BSD in that you cannot make an un-free Apache. It is the most successful Web server today, and makes commercial sense. It is part of the OSX world as well.
KHTML, the HTML rendering engine used by Apple’s new Safari browser (which seems quite populare among Mac users) is licensed under the LGPL, a license which, while more commercially-friendly than the GPL, is still quite different from BSD…It makes commercial sense here as well.
Let’s end this holy war and accept that licenses can coexist, including BSD and GPL, m’kay?
http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt
Read, learn. NOT GPL-LIKE. BSD like. Stop spreading FUD.
You should also investigate this product;
http://www.evolt.org/article/IBM_Apache/21/473/
Could someone explain in short whats the difference between the two ?
In short, users of GPL code have all freedoms except that of making the code proprietary or linking proprietary code with it.
Users of BSD code have all freedoms, period.
Or said differently, the GPL ensures the code’s freedom and the BSD the developer’s freedom.
Same word, same definition, but different emphasis.
“I don’t really get this. Surely they could have taken the Nvidia route to maintain a closed source binary.”
That’s what I would have figured also. If you read my entire post you would realize that I assumed they would do the same but it seems they haven’t. I never claimed I knew exactly what the infraction was, just that 802.11g stood out because it is not availabe for Linux as far as I know, at least it was not a couple of months ago when I was looking into getting a wireless card. It is more effiecient to have it in the kernel though. Maybe they just thought no one would notice.
Read, learn. NOT GPL-LIKE. BSD like. Stop spreading FUD.
Stop misusing the word FUD. FUD means Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. There’s nothing spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about my post, just an honest mistake. Don’t just say FUD when someone makes a erroneous statement. Use FUD when someone consciously spreads false claims in order to create Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt about something. You, know, just like you did when you started with your anti-Linux rants. Good to see you’ve mellowed out, BTW.
Anyway, one out of three examples weren’t correct, so I’m still 66% right! 🙂
All these suits needed to do was _READ_ the license – it isn’t hard to understand. The FSF has every right to defend the efforts of Free Software developers around the world from being exploited – there is nothing in the GPL or the LGPL that directly precludes a business model in any of the cases cited in the article.
My advice to any corporate type is RTFL!
Bascule (IP: —.atmos.colostate.edu) – Posted on 2003-10-14 19:32:04
“Uh, what does it change for you, personally, if you release it under a BSD or GPL license?”
It means my software is truly free, unlike the horrible semantics that have been applied to the term “free software” by the GPL mongers out there. It is free for anyone to use for whatever purpose they see fit, provided they give me credit for it.
See, that is one issue I too don’t get. People say, “wow, free software means freedom!” then you realise, after reading the fine print, it is more like “free software, now with strings attached!”. Free software is software that has no strings or legal obligations either via patents or license clauses as with the case of GPL. That is truely free software.
“Unless you get personal gratification out of the fact that someone can use your code without contributing any changes back, I really don’t see what you, as a developer, gain out of preferring BSD over GPL.”
Ideological superiority.
For me, I would also feel really chuffed that there is someone who considers my code good enough to be used. If a large company has used it, I would be extremely happy knowing that my code was up to the standard a commercial software vendor expects.
Great Cthulhu (IP: 209.47.215.—) – Posted on 2003-10-14 19:57:09
“It means my software is truly free, unlike the horrible semantics that have been applied to the term “free software” by the GPL mongers out there. It is free for anyone to use for whatever purpose they see fit, provided they give me credit for it.
The GPL is no less free. The only difference is that you can’t can take away the freedom of users to redistribute the work. The only thing the BSD gives over the GPL is the ability to “unfree” derived code. In other words, it gives the opportunity to others to get filthy rich out of your work without giving anything back, neither to you or the community.”
Why should the company have to give back code if they’re willing to give back something else? if the addition to the code is strategically important for the respective company, why should they then be expected to disclose the changes if they’re willing to, for example, donate money? donate 3 full time software engineers to work on the BSD Licensed software full time?
Almost every person/organisation who has taken from FreeBSD has in one way or another given back, either by code or through donations. Why not let the user of the code decide what they should give back? sure, there are going to be freeloaders, however, the vast majority will give back when possible.
As for a large, mega-corporation using my code? I’d be thrilled at the thought of *MY* code being in a companies product and people using it every day. Sure, they’ve got free code off me, but I’ve got the pride that *MY* code was chosen.
———————END-OF-COMMENT———————————-
Although I understand what the author is trying to get accross, the FSF also needs to fix up its image. From the outside they appear to be anti-business anti-proprietary software.
They need to take a more middle ground approach and get RMS to tone down his rhetoric. Unfortunately, when you have people like RMS as the unofficial spokensman for the FSF, it gives a very bad image. Just listen to him when he gets worked up over proprietary software.
Any mature person would realise that FSF licensed software doesn’t suit all task and sometime it is necessary to run proprietary software to get the work done. For RMS, he has a black and white view of the world, and unfortunately, that his is main down fall.
They also need to tone down the anti-business rhetoric on their website. Put it in a nice tone such as:
“The GPL was designed to protect software which has been made opensourced by the original author. Some licenses expect royalities if used in a commercial settings, some come with no strings attached. We believe that the best method to encourage the continuing open development of GPL software is for the “pay back” to be the modified to code made available so that it can be merged into the main software source.”
Now, doesn’t that sound a whole lot nicer? doesn’t that sound like an adult rather than some discruntled zealot annoyed with the world?
As for a large, mega-corporation using my code? I’d be thrilled at the thought of *MY* code being in a companies product and people using it every day. Sure, they’ve got free code off me, but I’ve got the pride that *MY* code was chosen.
Well, that was my point. You don’t need the code to be used in a corporate product to have people use it everyday. Take K3B – it’s all GPL, and it’s become one of the most practical and user-friendly cd-burning apps around. It is being used by more and more people – that’s a true source of pride. Compare this with someone making code that is appropriated by MS and included in the next version of Windows. Most people won’t use that piece of software by choice, but because the monopoly has simply presented it to them. Sure, the code may be good, but people won’t write you to tell you how good it is, nor won’t they contribute ideas and code to make it even better!
In any case, what you say is certainly true – but it’s a matter of personal preference. When I read people saying “the GPL sucks” or “the BSD license sucks”, it just reminds me of tedious flame-wars between kids over their favorite game console…
I think the best summation of the difference is the one an anonymous poster made on this thread: BSD is centered on developer freedom, while GPL is centered on code freedom. Different kinds of freedom. On my Linux system, there is stuffed licensed under the GPL, LGPL, BSD, Alladin, X11, Apache, and plenty of other licenses. There is also proprietary software.
One thing is for certain, though: Linux couldn’t have blossomed and grown like it has if it hadn’t been for the GPL. Some code, like the OS, is really better when it’s free! If only for that, the GPL is an important evolutionary step in sotware.
About the FSF’s image, you do realize that they are not suing Linksys, but are indeed engaged in “positive negotiations”. Despite the FUD spread by the Forbes article, they are doing this in a civil and professionnal manner, and I have no doubt that this will be settled quickly and to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
Are you saying something to the effect that Cisco would’ve forestalled a $500 million merger with Linksys had their lawyers managed to discover this GPL issue with one of Linksys’s suppliers?
…
I don’t think he’s saying that, but he IS saying that people should be held responsible before the law. The GPL is laid out specifically to prevent use of GPL’d source code in this manner. Whether or not the BSD liscense is better is a non-issue.
You are not exempted from having to follow the letter of the law simply because:
A) you didn’t know the law existed or
B) you didn’t realize you were breaking it
I haven’t heard a single comment stating that CISCO had even a marginal defense against this lawsuit. So why is there even any discussion regarding whether or not CISCO should have to comply to the letter of the law.
I do think, though, that it at the very least LOOKS incredibly dicey to see the way the FSF has handled past litigations.
They certainly don’t seem to be doing this from a non-profit, goodness-of-their-hearts type of feeling.
Oh, well.
And also…
The GPL is written like it is to accomplish certain goals, as is the BSD liscense. Whichever liscense the original author chooses should be respected at all times.
I haven’t heard a single comment stating that CISCO had even a marginal defense against this lawsuit. So why is there even any discussion regarding whether or not CISCO should have to comply to the letter of the law.
And I was simply saying that Cisco is an unfortunate victim of bad business decisions made by Linksys and Broadcom
>>>Although I understand what the author is trying to get accross, the FSF also needs to fix up its image. From the outside they appear to be anti-business anti-proprietary software.
Why should they need to fix their image?
FSF wrote the license in a specific and calculated way. Linus wrote the linux kernel and used the GPL license.
You have Linus, the original kernel developer, doesn’t care much about striking it rich with Linux and doesn’t care about becoming a paper billionaire. (While Linus isn’t anti-business per se, he ain’t pro-business either — that’s why he still commands respects from his fellow kernel hackers).
So you have both Linus and FSF agreeing on the philosophy of GPL. Who are you to dispute this “meeting of the mind”?