Slashdot Mirror
Using GPL/BSD Code In Closed Source Projects?
Dan asks: "I am considering writing a program that will use code from OpenSSH and OpenSSL as the base for my network protocol in a closed source project. How can I do this without breaking the GPL/BSD license? If I isolate the borrowed code in a shared library, and then open the source for that whole .so or .dll file, is that sufficient? Or do I also need to open the API for that shared library as well?
It seems to me to be quite reasonable to include code from open source projects in closed source projects, as long as the areas that it touches are open as well. For example: if I develop a network chess game with a protocol based on OpenSSH, it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly. Any thoughts on this?"
Tivo is a closed source user space app that runs on a modified version of the Linux kernel. The GPL is kinda funky when you are talking about OS kernels, but the general consensus and word from Linus is that running closed source apps on Linux is OK.
What prevents you from using microsoft's source code inside you application? I'm sure they have fast graphing algorithms.
If you do want to distribute the code, you're out of luck unless you're prepared to GPL it.
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Sounds like you're hosed, and FAI is hosed. That's your problem- better develop what you need yourself, or get it from BSD-licensed stuff. You obviously can't use GPLed code. I've written some GPLed code (not that you'd find it useful, you wouldn't) and I wouldn't want you using it under those conditions. If I wanted people to just _use_ what I did, I'd have made it public domain...
Well, the point of the GPL is that it's a fair exchange of code. I give you my networking code and let you use it, and in return you give me your chess code and let me use it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
But this is Unix. The Unix philisophy is "many small programs chained together". The Unix philosophy is of many small independent components, each of which is independently useful, glued together by an overarching "glue" program (often written in a scripting language, but not necessarily).
I think it's plenty clear that releasing independently-usable programs under the GPL satisfies all terms of the GPL, as well as adding to the large stock of GPL'ed software already out there. The operative phrase is INDEPENDENTLY USABLE. If it requires proprietary components in order to be useful, then it's not in compliance with the GPL. So if I create a new encryption program, let's called it, say, 'aescrypt', so that I can transfer encrypted passwords around my network by calling it from within my own proprietary programs, it is in compliance with the GPL as long as I can post it on Freshmeat and other people can download it and use it in their own scripts and programs. But if I made it require a special file or a special proprietary program in order to be useful, well, that's not in compliance with the GPL. Deciding exactly how independent a program must be in order to qualify as being a GPL'ed program is something that requires some thought. It's obvious that "aescrypt", for example, could be GPL'ed (we actually released it under the BSD license, but that's another story). But if we took the GNU "df" program and modified it to produce output that was easily parsed by shell scripts but that is not easily humanly readable, does the resulting program comply with the GPL? I say yes, because other shell scripts that need file system listings can use "sdf" ("shell df") and thus it is independently useful. But others may disagree.
RMS has covered this to a certain extent in his comments on calling GPL'ed CORBA components from proprietary programs. He's for it -- as long as the CORBA components are independently usable components (i.e., that don't require non-GPL'ed components in order to run). The goal is to increase the number of GPL'ed programs and components in the world so that he never has to use a proprietary program, not necessarily to squash all proprietary vendors (though he disapproves of proprietary vendors, obviously!) But I'm sure there's some possibilities in there that RMS is still thinking about.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
'mtx', 'tapeinfo', etc. are called from within BRU Professional (via ye olde fork/exec). No more a violation of GPL than calling GNU 'ls' from within a shell script that installs your proprietary program.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
While RMS would have preferred that we open sourced the whole application, the fact that we have released independently-usable programs as a result of our work is enough to satisfy the GPL and stave off a little of the grumbling. That is also why RMS says it's okay to call GPL'ed CORBA components from proprietary programs -- every little piece that's GPL'ed helps further his goal of being able to do everything with free software. The requirement is that the GPL'ed component be a complete, independently usable program or component -- this gives RMS something that he can personally run as part of his totally-free system. Just releasing a few unusable fragments of code (or a CORBA component that requires proprietary components in order to be useful) won't do the job.
Regarding network protocols, I wouldn't use 'ssh' or 'openssh' anyhow. Investigate 'openssl', and write your own protocol based upon it. I could not use OpenSSL for the closed source project that I worked on because of the RSA patent (which is now expired so it's not a problem for you, back then it WAS a problem) so I wrote my own Diffie-Hellman based protocol, but nobody should have to go through that hassle nowdays.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The rule (well, the law, I should say) is that if the library is GPL'ed, then programs that use the library must be GPL'ed. If you don't agree to that, you have no right under copyright law to use the library, and can be sued for a $100,000 copyright violation for each instance of shipping a proprietary product that uses the library (so if you sold 100,000 copies of your program... whoa, can you count that high?!). Note, however, that I can use 'tapeinfo', 'loaderinfo', and 'scsitape' from a proprietary product without the proprietary product itself being GPL'ed. What matters is that these are complete, useful programs. The fact that they can be called from shell scripts or Python scripts that are not themselves GPL'ed is irrelevant.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by polar_bear:
I really think that this guy needs to either suck it up and use the right license or re-write the code that he needs. Most developers use the GPL so that other folks have to use the GPL if they utilize code from the GPL'ed program. If you don't like the GPL that's cool -- but you shouldn't benefit from the work of people who contributed to Free Software.
BSD Licenses do allow what he's talking about, so if there's code available under that license then fine.
I'll probably get flamed into eternity for this but oh well...no one argues that I should be able to co-opt proprietary code from Windows and GPL it. If you want to write proprietary code, then you shouldn't be able to draw on Free Software.
The GPL is of course a license, and it takes a special kind of brain damage to think it isn't. But it's a license designed to achieve RMS's tool of maximising software freedom, so it's a political tool to that end.
It's funny how those who GPL their code get more heat from the likes of idiot you replied to than closed source software providers who give us less freedom with their code.
--
Xenu loves you!
It depends, I suppose, on whether they chose the GPL because it was simply the standard in their area of software, or whether they actually believed in copyleft. Or, in some cases, where they chose GPL just so they could keep close-source competition from gaining unfair advantage from their software (by using pieces without giving back their improvements).
I know Ian Murdock (Debian founder and dpkg developer) has even made noises that he would make an issue of using this sort of technique to use his GPL code with non-GPL programs. I think he ended up softening his stance in the end, though.
Since the authors own the copyright, they are allowed to change it at any point.
Say I release version 1.0 of libFoo. I realize that more people would use libFoo if it were LGPL or BSDL. So I can "re-release" 1.0 and future versions under the LGPL or BSDL, and not release any more versions under GPL. Anyone who uses the existing GPL'ed version must either adhere to the terms of the GPL, or switch to the newer version.
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
Credit where credit is due is all fine and good, but if you're using someone else's code, you kind of have to agree to their terms. Now, OpenSSH is (afaik) under a BSD-variant license, so that is all he has to do, basically - give credit to the OpenSSH guys.
However, if it were GPL'd, he'd have to follow the rules that the GPL lays down - like them or not, if he wanted to use GPL'd code, that's part of the deal. He could, alternatively, try to hash out a special agreement with the developers. Or, he could just look elsewhere, or license a commercial implementation, or write his own.
As another person noted in a previous post, you aren't automatically entitled to GPL'd code just because the source is available. If he licensed commercial code, and contravened the license agreement on that code, how long do you think the company he licensed it from would wait to sue him into oblivion? (Answer - not very long.) So, what makes anyone think that just because they don't like the licensing terms, they can just ignore them?
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
What he is saying is he'll take the code, make small changes/additions, and use it for networking in his game. He says he's fully willing to give you the changes/additions he makes.
He's not willing to give you the rest of the game, which is not a change or addition to the code, but something completely separate. I hardly see how you can consider the algorithm powering his chess game a change to the networking code. It's completely separate, and he has a valid point that it's silly to expect him to open that code.
What you'll probably end up with is a chess game that has crappy networking code, and GPL networking code that isn't improved because the license on it is ridiculous. Big win for Open Source(TM)
If you will be using such a trick to go over GPL, and it would be obvious you are using such a trick - expect yourself to be under attack from FSF and GPL zealots once you become enough famous to justify such an attack. Legally, you might be unvulnerable (GPL is never gone in court anyway), but PR-wise, you'll be taking serious beating on that.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
By "using library" I mean programming something with this library. Library by itself is a pile of dead zeroes and ones, unless there are programs that use its capabilities (meaning link to it). FSF means to restrict linking to GPL libraries to GPL code only. Which basically means only GPL programmers can use (not distribute in the source! use!) GPLed library. That's what I said.
Now that talk about "making money" really pisses me off. You know perfectly that GPL is incompatible with BSD, for example, and while no BSD developers are really "making money on other's efforts" (routinely, others are making money on BSD developers' efforts), they have to reimplement all GPLed code. So you know perfectly it's not about money, it's about FSF politics.
And "free as in speech" also doesn't prevent me to distribute words of others. BSD is copyrighted free speech - like a play. You can quote it, but you should say "I'm quoting Bill Shakespeare now". GPL is more like software patents - you can use it, but only if you pay FSF by making your software GPL. For some, it's much more than you would pay for any library. Especially if that's non-essential capability - like readline. OK, so my users won't be able to edit their inputs. Too bad for them. Thanks to FSF. I would not be making any product GPL just to be able to edit inputs, unless that's the only thing the product does. I can make some of my software GPL just because I like it, but compatibility with library that gives 1% of optional functionality wil certainly be the last thing I'd consider.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
You are right, of course. Your code is yours and nobody's else. But: if you are accepting this position, like "I give my code to whom I want, and only to those", why calling it "free software" and brag about how much code reuse and public good GPL libraries bring? Say "this library is GPL-proprietary software, only members of FSF political circle may use it", and be good. But calling "free software" something that anybody who slightly disagrees with FSF cannot even touch - that's a gross exaggeration if I ever have seen one.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Your assesment is incorrect.
You can only relicence code you've worked on. Despite the fact that you have contributed to A GPLed project, you still retain copyright ownership of the code you have produced therefore the maintainer of the project has no right to change the licence of the project as a whole. Taking your example. Linus can only relicence the code he has produced. Anything Alan or anyone else has done will have to be removed which is rather difficult and pointless I think you'll agree.
Now my Open Source ignorance is going to shine through. I am a huge advocate but I have to admit that I get lost in what I see as grey areas.
GPL questions...
I understand that copying and pasting somebody's code into your code is a bad thing. What about using a Perl module (you are including source with your source code). Or libraries that are GPLed but your code is not?
I could be missing the boat here. If I am not modifying the work that they have done and I am not including what they did with my software but it requires it to operate, is that wrong.
I can think of scripts I wrote in school that used Perl modules to get stuff done. Should those scripts be opened up?
How far does it reach?
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
<SHAMELESS PLUG>I am developing a project called xP</SHAMELESS PLUG> a graphical (X11) interface to Pine (the Program for Internet News & E-mail), (which is quasi-open sourced). But I am also using the XClass toolkit for graphics and widgets, which is LGPL. The great thing about the LGPL stuff is that you can make function calls to it from non-GPL code.
The Pine license stipulates that I cannot distribute a modified version of the Pine code, but I can distribute patches. So I patch the Pine code to make calls to the LGPL'ed XClass code. This way, XClass functions don't violate Pine's license, but more importantly, the xP project doesn't create "illegal" code by requiring Pine to be GPL (which it would be if XClass were GPL and not LGPL).
When navigating tricky waters with questionable licenses, the best is to use LGPL code.. Although in your particular case, you are developing the code that uses GPL code.. You could always license your program under the GPL. That doesn't mean that you can't sell it, just that if you do, you have to provide the source.
Aside from the fact that both the products you mention are BSD licence, meaning you can do what the hell you like with the code as long as you retain the author's copyright notice -- let's just explore the hypothetical situation if they had been GPL code.
If you really want to disrespect the wishes of GPL code authors, you might want to look at what the TiVo guys did to implement their proprietary filesystem on Linux.
What they did (or near as dammit) was write something akin to the NFS mounting code, except using UNIX sockets instead of IP sockets. This code had to be part of the Linux kernel, and was hence GPL. Then they wrote a closed-source piece of filesystem code which ran as root in userland. The GPL code in the kernel would then mount the filesystem being exported by the closed-source fileserver code.
This was legal, if not in the spirit of things.
So, you could write a program which proxies IPC messages and SSLifies them, and make it GPL. In fact such a thing might be a valuable tool to the community, since they could easily reuse it in all sorts of situations. Your closed-source program would use this GPL'd component's services to reach the outside world in an SSLified manner.
Oh, by the way, we call SSL TLS these days, for some reason unknown to me...
--
If it's BSD, all you have to do is give proper credit.
If it's LGPL, then you can isolate the code in a shared library and Open-Source that, while keeping the rest closed. It does have to be a shared library, however; static ones won't do.
If it's GPL, your chances are slim, but all is not lost. Ask the authors of the code for permission to use their code in your project. You never know; they just might let you do it.
----------
If you're doing closed-source work, don't even look at GPL code, lest you be accused of stealing code somewhere down the line. And if someone calls you on a suspected GPL violation, how can you prove your innocence? Show them the code? Even if you are inspired by how a piece of GPL code did something, and implement something similar, that's kinda suspect as well.
Play it safe, don't invite the wrath of GPL zealots upon yourself and your project, just steer clear of GPL code altogether.
On the other hand the BSD licence is for people who would rather see good code running things, even if there is no way to get money or code or (assuming the advertising clause is dropped) even fame.
If you spend a month tweeking a LaPlacian predictor for whatever reason and slap the BSDL on it you get code that might make it into your automatic transmition, or anti-lock breaks. If you GPL it chances are very slim.
Either is your right. The GPL is somewhat more likely to force others to open their code. The BSDL won't force anyone to, but people who use it migh feel like contributing on their own. Or not.
Well, if they BSDL it, or (to a lesser extent) LGPL it, I would say it is Ok, because they told you it was. If the code is GPLed, and allready packaged up as a usable program, maybe it is Ok. Is it OK for a comercial web browser to fire up a GPLed helper app? Is it ok for a comercal shell to use GPLed programs inside a pipeline? Is it OK for a comercial program to run under the Linux kernel? Is it OK for the same comercal entity to ship a Linux distribution "for free" along with the comercial (close source) program?
Yeah, but one man's loophole is another's clear intent. Is what TiVo did exploiting a loophole? Or did Linus intend to allow it?
I'll totally admit that taking a GPLed liberey and turning it into a program, and than effectavly into a LGPLed one by talking to that program over a pipe or shared mem or whatever is...distasteful, cheeting, and immoral at least if the program isn't generally useful. The harder part is, what if that program is gennerally useful?
If gzip was only libgzip.a, and GPLed, would writing a commandline gzip and gzcat be immoral? Even if the primary intent is to let it be used from a non-GPLed program?
There's no reason for outrage because the BSDL allows this! If they author of the code didn't want to allow re-licensing then they wouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place. The only thing required by the BSD license is that credit be given. You're free to re-license it under the GPL or some proprietary license or whatever license you can cook up.
The GPL on the other hand, does not allow this. That's explicit. That's one reason why some people choose the GPL: it guarantees that their code will always be free.
Hope that clears things up.
noah
You can do whatever you want with BSD code. You *cannot* link proprietary code to a GPL library. If you want to do that you have 2 options: either release the whole thing under GPL or pay for a proprietary library and use that instead of the Free one.
Read the f* license before you post. And if you still don't get it, feel free to come back and ask slashdot again.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Let's get the facts straight. You can do that if the library is licensed under LGPL. You cannot link any proprietary code to a GPL library.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Right, but that means you cannot distribute proprietary code linked against a GPL library since it cannot do anything useful without that library (well, crash/copmlain is not what I consider useful).
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Code cannot be "stolen". (and this is according to RMS. He gave a talk at my University). However, the GPL code can be "misused" (his term) in exactly the way you describe.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Full disclosure: I just started hang gliding, so the chances that I'll be in the market for a Linux-supported vario in the near future seems to be rather high; I'd love some graphics support :)
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
The GPL is in it's most simple for a legally-enforced virus. It's a nasty way of spreading the socialist ideals of a certain organization run by Richard M. Stallman.
In an ideal world there'd be nothing wrong with this. Unfortunately, many developers (and non-developers alike) are obsessed with the idea of "information wants to be free", and related mantra. Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. People want information to be free, just like people would like everything to be free. That isn't how things work. Confirmed by the growing popularity of napster and friends, the world wants information to be free, consequences be damned.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Why don't you buy the commercial version of SSH? You can pay your way, and your customers can pay theirs, and eveyrone will be happy.
If you're unwilling to pay yourself, then maybe you should reconsider your model.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with your original post and my response.
BTW you can sell open source.
"Oh twap!"
Perhaps you could isolate the super-secret-squirrel code in another executable that gets called by the main application which you could then GPL...
There's lots of BSDL code out there too, which would work for you just fine.
"Oh twap!"
Stallman's use of the word "free" very seldom has anything to do with monetary cost and everything to do with freedom.
Or are you under the impression that when people talk about a "free country" they mean that you can get anything without paying for it?
There is a difference between selling software for steep prices, and trying to lock-in the customer through secret code and underhanded anticompetitive practices like Microsoft's "embrace and extend" policy.
"Oh twap!"
You may regard that as a benefit. From my perspsective, if somebody wants to use my code for their project, they should have to open their project's code too. That's the reason why the project I work on uses the GPL.
Others might be happy for their code to be absorbed into closed source projects. Sometimes there are practical reasons for allowing this, sometimes it's just personal preference. Good for them - they can use the BSD license or put their code in the public domain. Just don't expect me to.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
When people release a work under the GPL license, they're making a statement. They're saying: you can use my source code, for free, and you may also charge a price for the work that you derive from it, BUT.
And the but is: you should also license your derived work under the GPL. And if you think that is too big a price to pay, that's okay. You don't have to use that particular GPL-ed piece of code. You can find open source code that is license with a different license, many BSD-like licenses are less restrictive about which license you use for your derived work.
But you have to give credit to people who think the GPL is a good idea. They have the right to believe this, and if they write software and release that under the GPL, they're certainly putting their money where their mouth is, and you have to appreciate that, even if you don't agree with the GPL's philosophy. (And the fact that the GPL is in actual use, and there are still people who think that it's a good idea, does give some credit to the GPL. Many philosphies, in software or otherwise, start to crumble the moment that people actually start to live by it.)
So... if you think that abiding by a software license is silly, think again. None of the open source and free software licenses come anywhere near the unreasonability of many commercial software licenses, that try to restrict your rights much beyond what is allowed to them by copyright law and international conventions. But more than that, these open source licenses are an expression of what the author wanted with their work, and I think that, if you want to be looked upon with sympathy by open source writers, users, and other slashdot posters, you should repect the wishes of the authors.
And the best way to do that, if you're not sure about something: ask the author. Most of them will be happy with your attention.
Erwin
Oh, and a word about the GPL. Other software license, so call 'shrink-wrap' or 'click-though' are a license to use. This means you do not, in fact, own your copy of the software, merely license it. This gives them a nice end run against all sort of copyright rights given to owners of copyrighted works.
On the other hand, the GPL simply grants you extra rights, more then copyright law allows. It grants you a limited right to copy the software, and a right to modify it, neither of which exist under copyright law. (Actually, both are specifically banned.) All not accepting the GPL does is set to back to default copyright laws, and you can still use the copy of the software you own all you want, whereas if you don't accept a EULA theortically you don't have the right to use the software at all. (Of course, then you have the option of just getting a minor to 'accept' for you, or mailing it to someone in a country where shinkwraps aren't legal, or many other way to keep from 'accepting' the license, and you get it under normal copyright laws.)
This is what really confused me about people questioning the GPL's legality. Now, there might be loopholes, granted, where peole can give out GPL stuff without giving out sources mods, but the license itself has to be legal, and any company arguing otherwise would merely end up proving then have no right to distribute any GPL stuff at all, under any circumstances, per normal copyright laws.
This is why we can be pro GPL and anti other things. The DVD thing isn't even a license at all, and EULA's are setting much more restrictive rules then normal copyright law, but the GPL is providing moe freedom. Granted, it doesn't provide as much freedom as LGPL, or BSD, or public domain, in order, but it's still more then copyright law is supposed to force. (But apparently you can just 'license' stuff to get around that. I can't wait till they start licensing cars to get around safety laws, or licensing books to keep you form reselling them.)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Please explain which of the following situations constitute linking, and are allowed under the GPL. Then explain how these differ in any important way.
1. A non-GPL'd application opens a socket to a GPL'd network daemon and communicates via read()/write()
2. A non-GPL'd application opens uses a pipe via pipe() or popen() to a GPL'd program and communicates via read()/write() or fread()/fwrite().
3. A GPL'd application is written as a driver for a GPL'd library, and this application is then used to communicate with the library using one of the two above methods.
4. A non-GPL'd application symbolically links to a GPL'd library and communicates via functions, the references to which are resolved at run time by the linker/loader.
5. A non-GPL'd application statically links to a GPL'd library and communicates via functions, the references to which are resolved by the compiler/linker.
The only distinction worth making is between the final example and all of the others. Only in the final example is it diffficult if not impossible to disentangle the GPL'd and non-GPL'd code. The first four examples are functionally identical; if one of them is permissible, then there is no reason to disallow any of them.
Did it ever occur to any GPL zealots that perhaps the MPAA and RIAA got their ideas about restrictive, arbitrary licenses by learning from Richard M. Stallman?
Well, there's the problem in a nutshell. Why can you only do harm to people by closing your source? Really, why?
Don't just give me links to RMS's rantings; I've read them all and I'm still not convinced. This doesn't make me a MS junkie (although I have to admit; as a desktop OS Win2K is not bad at all... open a couple of PuTTY windows and I'm good to go), and pretty much everything I've ever written or contributed to is OSS (except at work). But I have yet to find a good, solid reason why it's ethically a bad thing to write software and not open the source if you don't want to. There are plenty of good reasons to open your source, yes, but the RMS's tactic of intentionally seeking to destroy proprietary stuff by making it very hard for it to compete seems vaguely Nazi-ish to me.
This isn't meant to be flamebait, and no, I haven't (yet) figured out the ideal solution to all this. But I'm a college geek 1.5 years away from the job market, and I want to write code for a living. So far there are a *ton* of opportunities to do this commercially, but despite all the cries of "you CAN make money with open source!" I've yet to see any of them, even though I'm quite sure they're out there. I've got this dreadful feeling that if RMS manages to win somehow, and closed-source can no longer compete, we'll have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
Could be smart and write a small helper-application that is completely open sourced and then use that application to do what you like. Given the likely uses of SSH I doubt anyone would be pissed if you wrote a program to simplify tunneling protocols (even more) that was opensourced and then just passed your data to that in the background. It's no different than a commercial program that runs a bash shell script to do something so it should be okay. If the program happens to be tuned for what you need then oh well - if it's opensource and useful others will tune it to their needs too.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
...Or, you could do what this guy did. Take all the graphing stuff you want, release a seperate graphing program, call that program from your program, done. As long as you release a seperate, usable program or library, you are in the clear, and the FAI won't hunt you down and kill you.
I like music
Actually, I think it's the GPL people who are assuming there is an intrinsic right to use code. That's the whole point of "free" software, after all.
I can only assume Dan is planning on compiling a high-tech spam list with the email addresses from all the flames he gets.
Somehow I doubt the slashdot crowd is going to be overly sympathetic to the stated goal of, essentially, figuring out the LEAST you can do in terms of contribution for what you've taken.
While you may be totally legally clear by just returning all the network side of your app to GPL, I think the moral idea is that if you are clearly benefitting from "borrowed" code, you should be loaning out your own code at more than the bare minimum required so that others can benefit.
The other (comprimise) way of doing this would be neither to give back the chess game nor just your network patches, but something in-between. Develop a generalized gaming network protocol based on OpenSSH that could be used by other game developers for backgammon and checkers, so that while you may be selling your closed-source chess game, you make it easier for others to create similarly polished (and compatible!) games (GPLed or not).
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
That said, both codebases are under licenses which allow you to copy code (1 - OpenSSL) as long as you don't claim the finished product to be the original, or use the name of the original to promote your work. (2 - OpenSSL) That derived code include the copyright notice from the original code. And (3 - OpenSHH) that you credit the originators for their work.
So the bottom line is yes, you can use it. GPL code however requires that when redistributing GPLed code, you license it under the GPL, include source code for no additional cost. If you only copy and do not redistribute GPLed code, (i.e. for a project strictly internal to your company/organization) then all bets are off, and you can do with it as you please.
-earl
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone would _kill_ for the GPL? That is the kind of statement that tarnishes the reputation of GPL advocates.
Wow. You'd do all that? That'd be a first! I have not once seen the GPL fought in court - perhaps if you showed me where it has been I could believe you, but until then I say that the GPL is a great idea but that its useless without legal backing (i.e. a won court case) - - plus, as an open source developer, where are you getting money to get a lawyer and bring suit? I don't see too many high paying jobs that deal with open source (sure, there are SOME, and if you're one of them I can understand).
The GPL is useless until it has won a court case.
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
If you think you know what the hell is going on you're probably full of shit. -- Robert Anton Wilson
jdube is who
Don't think you will get away with it. Many have
tried and gotten caught. You will be exposed as
a law breaker and thief.
I don't know, can you point to one place which gives information on people getting caught with GPL'd code in a closed-source program?
I ask because CONSTANTLY it comes up that people say, "Maybe this will be the legal test of the GPL" blahblahblah... From comments like these, it sounds like there has NOT been such a case yet.
Erik
I love contradictions...
1) I wonder how many people who are calling the use of GPL'ed code in a proprietary application "stealing" also get riled up when RIAA uses the same word to refer to Napster. (For the record, neither are "stealing", they would both be copyright infringement.)
2) Those who are bitter at the GPL, calling the license a virus. I wonder how many of them support proprietary software developers being able to create any restrictive license they want. (If MS can put all their inane restrictions in their EULA, then the FSF types can put whatever they want in theirs. It works both ways)
Stop the hypocracy. Either you agree with the concepts of intellectual property, copyrights, and licenses, or you don't. (In case anyone is curious, I find the concepts fundamentally flawed, but that is an argument for another day)
-Wintermute
And EXACTLY where can I download this alleged open source AIX? (Version 4.3.3 please, I want to play with the new ipv6 routing ability).
> As a political tool, hey, whatever you can get away with to force other people to release THEIR code, no matter that it has nothing to do with YOUR contribution.
Nice spin. Completely bogus. I can't "force" you to do anything. However, I can withhold my permission for you to use my code.
It's not like using GPL'd code is your only choice when you start a new project. You could write it yourself, like I did. Or you could hire someone else to write it. Or you could obtain it through a license which may or may not cost money, depending on what you want and who is licensing it to you.
The problem with critics of the GPL is that they assume they have some kind of intrinsic right to use GPL'd code, and thus bitch about the restrictions on it. The fact is, however, no one has any intrinsic rights to it at all. You can use it under a license, just like you could with code from Sun or Microsoft. If you don't like the cost or terms of the license, you have to shop elsewhere, whether you're dealing with Sun, Microsoft, or me.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
AFAIK, IANAL and all that.
You'll be wanting to read the OpenSSL licence then?
But it seems fine to me. OpenSSL is released under a variant of the BSD licence (enforced credit-where-it's-due), which is more or less carte blanche to do what you like provided you put some thank you's in the appropriate pages. Apart from that, fine, tunnel what you like. Try hacking around with stunnel first (/usr/ports/security/stunnel/).
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Don't bother saying "change FAI's mind".
Well, you could try changing the mind of the author of the code you want to use. If they want you to use their code, they'll let you. If it's a big project with hundreds of coders, well, then you're probably out of luck. I don't think this is a big problem outside of some few, very specific circumstances, though. I don't really have a problem with people using a license to spread a political idea. At any rate, the point of the GPL is not to provide maximum functionality to the maximum number of people (at least in the short term) -- it's to change the world (or at least our niche of it).
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
There's no reason to disallow GPLed code, except for license nazis who hate RMS.
If I write a game by using 50% GPLed code, I'll get that game out a lot faster. But I'll have to GPL the game source and release it.
If I change my mind, I can simply rewrite that 50% that I borrowed and then I'm free of the GPL.
You can't revoke a license. If you release something under any license you can't change your mind, GPL or BSD, or whatever. But you can relicense your portion of the source. That is, simply rerelease the code with a new license. Or, in this case, remove the GPLed code and then don't release the source.
But, imho, it's pretty sleazy to use open source code to write a game and then close the project when it gets popular. If you used community resources to write something, you should help the community by releasing your code. To do otherwise is terribly greedy.
Counterstrike (to use your example) would still sell just as many copies if it was open sourced. All the content (art, maps, models, etc) is copyrighted quite seperately from the GPL. To release the source code wouldn't involve giving a working copy of the game away.
Nobody would be upset if you did all you could to release as much source-code as possible. Especially if you were hampered not by YOUR desire to keep the code closed, but by that of a clueless company.
You've already finished it (from the sounds of it) but had you been starting now, I'd say that it likely would have been a lot easier if you could have borrowed GPLed code for your tasks. That would probably have ofset any lost time involved in breaking out the device specific routines into a seperate file.
It honestly doesn't sound like an application with a wide market, so don't sweat it.
If I write a program for my own use, I'll send the binary to a friend of testing, without worrying about this technically being distribution, etc. Ditto with something I wrote for myself that someone else wanted a copy of.
I'd only call it distribution if I was offering it to other people, on a web page or something.
That may not technically be the correct meaning, but in the case of a limited audience app, I don't think it matters. (While a high percentage of your friends might use it, I doubt many people worldwide have ever heard of FAI, let alone need to interface with hardware they certified.)
That's exactly where it comes from. Remember, not everyone who uses Linux is sufficiently proficient with the tools one needs to build a Linux distribution, or even to install one without help. Those are the people RedHat makes money from, and there's no shortage of that kind of people.
Actually, I think it's the GPL people who are assuming there is an intrinsic right to use code. That's the whole point of "free" software, after all.
Nope, there are a number of points depending on who you ask. Even a cursory examination of the posts under this article or any other public discussion on the subject should show you that different "GPL people" (I guess you mean people who use or advocate the use of the GPL?) have different objectives and priorities.
all the people that are getting on to this guy for wanting to keep his code to himself need to grow up... have any of you considered the fact that he may not be allowed to release the code if he is writing it for someone else (like his employer)...
he clearly isnt wanting to take credit (he posted on fucking slashdot!) but he also isnt interested in reinventing the wheel. and for those of you saying "if your customers pay, so should you, use a commercial lib" did you ever stop to think it may not be sold (ie free-as-in-beer, or in house software)...
as long as he gives credit where its due, i say more power to him (even if it were my code)...
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!" --Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
AFAIK, no, as long as you distribute the program under the terms of the GPL. That's where the incompatability lies: the GPL overrules more permissive licences by requiring you make the source available.
OpenSSH and OpenSSL both fit under variants of the BSD license. The only place the GPL is mentioned in either one is in OpenSSL which specifically DENIES the right to relicense under GPL. Out of the 33 posts ATM, a good dozen or so are about how to include GPL stuff in payware. What part of BSDL don't all of you understand? As far as the inclusion of BSD licensed stuff in payware, Microsoft did it with the early versions of their TCP stack (up until win2K), BSDi does it regularly, and HP is still doing it for now. Mostly it involves making sure that copyright notices stay intact and ensuring that the Copyright holder (often the Regents of UC Berkeley) gets credit where credit is due.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
"If you use MY code, you go with MY license!" - Wait a second. Why can we say that and not be hypocritical? I want to use a DVD player. The DVD industry insists that the discs I use be encrypted. I want to watch THEIR movies, shouldn't I agree to THEIR license? What about Napster? I want to listen to THEIR (the artists') music, should I obey THEIR wishes?
Oh wait, everything's okay if it's done in the name of the GPL. Sorry, I don't mean to rant, but we can get pretty hypocritical around here...
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Regrettably, it is now well-settled law that the loading of a computer program into RAM constitutes a "reproduction," of a copy, or copying, under 17 U.S.C. s. 6, which, if unlicensed, constitutes an infringement.
The question whether you will be "found out" and prosecuted or subject to liability is a question different from whether you may legally use, but not distribute, modified or linked-to GPL software that you feel could not be distributed.
Something that's always confused me about the GPL is that since anything that links with GPLed code must be GPLed, then all applications that run on Linux must be GPLed. Drawing distinctions between .so run-time linking and kernel service-calls seems rather arbitrary.
Just a note, regarding the level of plugin, the GPL does actually specify at least one point I believe, which is that code of any license can interact with it if the GPL code is entirely contained within a standalone executable or some such, I suggest a careful look around the FSF website, but examples put forward earlier such as Netscape Mail using gzip, etc, suggest that you could do it with only a little work.
You can't win a fight.
First, many companies have been shamed into action based on their use of GPL code - technocrat.net is going down (hey, Bruce, I know what it's like to have a kid around), but Bruce Perens deserves credit for being the shamer on more than one occasion.
Second, it's sad how frequently a simple "strings" on a library file will give all sorts of interesting things, some of which could be easily hidden if the Bad Guys weren't so lazy about hiding it. And if they weren't why wouldn't they look at your code, get ideas about how to do it better, and do it? And isn't that kind of progress the real point? If not, why not remain a medieval guild of dyers keeping secret dyeing secrets about how to dye cloth? Clearly, many think that's an attractive option, but that means little: who's name do you know, Isaac Newton, or Horst Farber of Ulm, d 1567?
so-crates.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
"Free Software" in the GPL sense is only relevent when you are distributing your software. Your example is null-meaning.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
If you use GPL code and don't release the source to the result, you're violating copyright. All of the remedies available to a proprietary code owner whose copyright has been violated should be available to the GPL code copyright owner(s). As I remember it, the cost could be as high as $10K/copy plus actual damages. (IANAL).
It's rather like sex. Just because it's normally available for free doesn't mean that there aren't any conditions. If you start presuming that you can take it on your own terms, you may end up in jail.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
This is why RMS says that GPL is not about free (beer-like) source code. There is a real cost. The cost is that you can't keep your own code secret.
If you're not willing to pay the price, don't use GPL software.
Set the source code free!
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Yep. This is where the Cost of free (as in speech) software is felt. The FAI wants secrecy (you could even argue that they have a valid reason for wanting secrecy). Unfortunately, secrecy is pretty much incompatible with the GPL.
One thing to consider is that, if it weren't for the GPL, chances are that you wouldn't have had that graphics code available to want in your code. If it had been written at all it would have probably been proprietary.
Another thing to consider is that you can take your case to the writers of the GPL code and ask for an exception. You might actually offer the following:
Can you see THIS OPTION as something of a win/win? You get to protect the Vario protocol. We get to see your really interesting code -- and use it with other veriometers. Problem solved. It should also be noted that the solution is proof of the bazzar concept. "To a thousand eyes, any problem is transparent". If you hadn't handed the problem to the hundreds of thousands of slashdot users, nobody would have come up with a solution that you could (presumably!) use.Looking forward to seeing your code.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I am pretty sure that what you described is the lgpl. It allows free libraries to be linked into no-free code. (like how the old star office linked glibc) If they didn't do that then basically nobody would be able to create a closed source app for linux.
Law is a respectable profession you know. Dont let The Practice tell you otherwise or the blood suckers who work for the RIAA taint your vision. Man, people truely do see a couple of bad apples and immediately throw out the barrel. Either way, you want some cheese with that whine?
How we know is more important than what we know.
why dont you go and get a law degree. It could make your practice.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If it's all about being free and open why don't we just make everything public domain and not restrict users. If closed-source projects use open-source code, they aren't stealing profits from open-source code because it's open anyways.
I think that's the point.. it's all about everything being free and open. RMS is not just trying to encourage Free Software, he is trying to stop closed software, which is all in all, a good thing, because you only do harm to people by closing your source.
How we know is more important than what we know.
bah.. if the Microsoft EULA (which basically declares that you have agreed to the license before you even read it) can stand up in court, so can the GPL. Copyright is lame, outright.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I cant say I agree that GPL forces anyone to open their code. Indeed it does use the force of the state, so this is debatable, but I tend to think that GPL is about not wanting to aid other people in writing non-free software. This would be because non-free software is considered a Bad Thing in that it reduces freedom and causes social harm. Now RMS is not coming out and saying "Thou shalt not harm others with non-free software" (although I wouldn't be suprised if he did say this), he's just saying "If you want to go and build fences and hurt people you can do it without my help and without the help of free software".
How we know is more important than what we know.
The reason that you wouldn't say that is that it's not true. Anyone can use GPL software. The GPL only restricts what gets done with the source code. Specifically, it puts restrictions on source code so that GPL'd code won't make its way into proprietary software.
And that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. When I work on code, and contribute it to the community, I don't want someone else making money off of my effort. Sorry that's just the way I am.
You may decide that since this is a restriction, that it's not free, since "free" would imply without restriction. But "free as in speech" doesn't imply without restriction (e.g. slander, libel, and yelling "fire" in crowded public places), so I don't see the need for "free software" to imply no restrictions.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Not that I encourage this, but there is a very elegant way to do this with SysV IPC. Just create a "server" using the library and have it respond to messeges.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I agree with almost all of that. I myself am a programmer and linux user. I would love the ability to fire up my copy of VC6Pro and debug windows when Media Player crashes (which it has been VERY often :-). Here's what I'm thinking:
:-) I disagree... I think.
It is obvious that we (the Open-Source community) are doing very little to aid in the development of non-free, closed-source software as they cannot use any of our code. You can argue that that is true, but that's fine. I mean, we should all be GPL anyway.
My point is that I think we SHOULD NOT all be GPL. If all is open-source than, in this future of abundant bandwidth, why won't I just download and compile all my software without paying for it. Where's all the revenue that funds these projects going to come from?
Remember, most technological innovation came from a funded source. Xerox for example birthed the user interface. Macintosh spent LOTS of money doing usability testing. As has Microsoft. It we are all Open-Source, where is this money going to come from? Where will all the advancement come from?
I think that maybe I am simply missing some fundamental point of the Open-Source business model. So, someone please enlighten me. Assuming a future in which everyone has a fast internet connection and remains as greedy/thrifty as they are now, where is all of the funding going to come from?
It's obvious that RedHat has managed to do quite well thus far. Unfortunately, I can't say I quite understand how. Is all this revenue due to tech support contracts and cd sales or is there more?
If I am as misguided as I believe I might be, thank you for having the time to help me figure this out. And thank you for the intelligent reply to my other post.
Justin Dubs
Thank you both for the replies. I think I understand better now. I'm still sure I'll have to see-it-to-believe-it to a certain extend. Ah, well... always a cynic. Thanks again,
Justin Dubs
(Assume that I'm the author of the aforementioned code. I'm not, but...)
If you want to use MY code, you have to agree to the terms I give on it. And my terms for using MY code within your program are that you have to release the source code for the entire application.
GPL code is not public domain. You have to satisfy MY price to distribute MY code. Otherwise, you have no rights under copyright law. If you don't like the terms I offer, you can either negotiate other terms with me (which will probably require monetary renumeration), or you don't use the code.
If you want code without these restrictions, either reimplement it yourself, or use public domain. You have no right to use my code.
Because this is Slashdot. What, you didn't sign the pledge to commit yourself to Linux and your undying love of the GPL when you joined? Conform... conform... :-)
It also doesn't mean you shouldn't. In the case of OpenSSH, I can say with certainty that the authors don't care how you use it. They don't have an axe to grind.
Copyright is also a really long time. I can't recall the specifics offhand, but 50 years floats to the forefront as a minimum. There's also some stickiness about renewals and rights to survivors and the like.
Greetings from a fellow nut. :-)
I'd probably go PD myself, too, but there's the thorny issue of protecting oneself from people who think that gifts of code should be warranted. Being paranoid about that sort of thing, I'm shooting for an X license (is it just me, or does anyone else think the BSD license has some problems with grammar and punctuation?)
You're the original author of GoodForNothing, so you can do whatever the hell you want with it, plain and simple. There are a few companies that do this for their business model -- release the same code both GPLd and proprietary so they can appease zealots^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H gain support from Linux folk and make money at the same time. (Of course, they must get copyright assignment on any outside contributions in order to keep doing this.)
OpenSSH won't stand in your way in this scheme. It's licensed under the BSD license.
Dammit... Missed it by Mere SECONDS :(
--
And all versions require copyright reproduction. But with online help documents and thick manuals, that's really not too hard.
-bugg
Unless you can get a waiver from the developers,
all of them, you have to open source your additions.
This applies even if you try and encapsulate the GPL code in a library.
LGPL would be OK though, as would BSD. That's what's wrong with BSD IMHO. Companies can
privatize your code and give nothing back.
Don't think you will get away with it. Many have
tried and gotten caught. You will be exposed as
a law breaker and thief.
Just stay away from GPL code; its not particularly good compared to the alternatives, anyway.
Compare Win98 and Linux. Which one do you say is crappy? Win98 is slow, buggy, and is full of security holes. WinME is even worse. Windows may have more apps, but what good does that do you if they crash (or cause Winxx to crash) half of the time.
So is the default install of RedHat!
:)
No, actually i've had to do very little to secure my RH6.2 installation. Nor is it slow or buggy. Everything worked fine out of the box, and it handles routing my network packets faster then win98 ever could
I said compare win9x and linux because someone claimed win98 was better.
Actually i know Win9x, WinNT (and 2k), VMS/VAX, Solaris, Digital Unix, MacOS, DOS (with or without win3.x...ya, i know, whoopie...but at the time..) and some Commadore 64/128 (again, whoopie, but at the time..).
Next time, don't speak without knowing...
I always thought that the GPL was intended for complete works that could stand on their own, and the LGPL was for libraries that needed to be linked with NON-GPL'ed libraries and code. I think you can LINK NON-GPL or NON-LGPL with LGPL libraries , even if your code is closed source. HOWEVER you may have to supply the source to the LGPL library with your binaries, and the source to ANY changes you made to the LGPL libraries. If you use any GPL'ed code in your app, then you'd better GPL the app as well. As for BSD stuff, well just give the author credit and take it.
Many people think RMS is a real ASSHOLE over the GPL, but it is a two way street. Everyone who created code and licensed it via the GPL has given this stuff away, for ANYONE to use. All they want in return is to keep the fruits of their labor FREE. They also want any by-products of their labor to be FREE. If you think that's too much to ask, then go buy something from Bill Gates' little company.
The GPL is designed to prevent exactly this. While the BSD and, to a lesser extent, the LGPL, has a main purpose of seeing the code in use, hopefully in a free way, the GPL has a main goal of making as much code open as possible. In this, it sacrifices the convenience of the developer for freedom. While this is a goal that you may or may not agree with, it is one that you should respect before trying to use GPL'ed code in a closed application.
Your option under the GPL is this: Open your code or use a closed-source library. Perhaps, instead of trying to find a way to include open code without violating the license, you should explore either one of the above options. Anything else would violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the General Public License.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
I've been reading some of the other posts in this discussion and would like to ask a general question to anyone out there who actually knows the details/implications of the GPL.
I always thought that the way the GPL was designed was that you did not HAVE to give the source code to ANYONE, not even the original authors you may have borrowed from, except the people to whomb you distribute the resulting product. You may redistribute the software in binary or source form to anyone you choose in any fashion (including traditional sale), BUT to anyone you distribute it to you MUST include the source code, or provide the source code on demand and that you must give the recipient of the source code the same rights.
Thus it could be that I could write a GPLed word processor (call it WordLin say). I could charge $30 for the software. Even though it is GPLed I don't have to provide the source code to ANYONE unless they have bought the software. If anyone DOES buy the software, I must provide the source code on demand (and presumeably I must provide indications of the lisence somewhere in/around the software) and they are then free, under the GPL, to redistribute the software as they see fit (or do they have to alter it first?).
Now does anyone who actually knows about the GPL reply to this description, preferebly with supporting quotations/URLs.
Also, for Snocone, could you perhaps put the code that implements the FAI protocols into a closed source module, and LGPL the rest of the project. Wouldn't that allow your actual project (with the GPL code snipets) to be open source(ish) but still keep the FAI protocols closed? Or maybe have a closed source communication back end that the GPL frontend calls to do the actual transfer (like a GPL mail program contacting a closed source mail server), thus allowing the frontend to use the GPL graphing libraries? Just some ideas.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix
What's "nasty" about it? You don't like the GPL, so don't use GPL'd code. Write your own stuff. Or do you think it's fair to use someone else's hard work in your own project and then be under no obligation to pay for it? There is NO difference between what the article poster proposes, and taking someone's closed source code and incorporating it into your work without paying for it. In one case the price is monetary, while in the other it is the requirement to open your code. You are free to choose not to use it. Trying to "get around" the license is unethical and morally wrong. No one is forcing anyone to use the GPL.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Explaination by analogy. Today, Pres. Dubya reinstated an old policy (dating to 1984) that any health charity that provides abortions will not be eligible for US international aid.
If Bush did this in order to make all these groups ineligible for the money, that would be the equivalent of someone GPL'ing their code so that you aren't able to use it.
If Bush did this to make those organizations stop providing abortions, this would be the equivalent of someone GPL'ing their code so that you are forced to GPL your code. This is why someone above said that the GPL isn't a software license, it's a political tool.
Actually the use was NOT in accordance with the license of the time.
It is easy to find advertising material for NT that did not follow clause #3.
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Today, if the CD or documentation has the copywrite and disclaimer, they are OK.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I guess if it's BSD you can change the liscense and that's fine,
No.
You can not CHANGE the copyright on the BSD code. You can use the code in any way that allows you to honor the license clauses.
Considering the clauses are:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4.Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Most use of BSD code can honor these clauses. #3 was deemed incompatible with the GPL. And, it seems many users of BSD code didn't follow clause #3. So, the university dropped #3.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I thought the U of Berkeley removed the advertising clause to their license. This was covered on /.
/.
And what is so hard about actually READING the BSD license?
Oh, wait, as this AC points out...this is
If so, you don't even have to let them know the code is there anymore and don't have to credit them
WRONG, wrong, wrong.
All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of
California.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
As you can see, you HAVE to keep the copywrite and disclaimer. You HAVE to keep the copywrite on the code.
Now, you can ADD other copywrites which do not conflict. But you CANNOT do as the AC suggests.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
No, the original poster is *NOT* correct.
The removal of clause #3
3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Just because #3 is gone, this does not mean #1 and #2 clause go away.
1.Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2.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.
The poster who stated:
If so, you don't even have to let them know the code is there anymore and don't have to credit them
IS WRONG
You have to credit them. And you have to let others know that the code has BSD origins.
You just don't have to do it in the advertising materials is all.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Of course it is. There are tons of closed source user land apps. Every moron looking at some internet appliance running Linux claims it's a GPL violation. It's obviously not as long as they contribute back and distribute and modifications they made to GPLed code. They have NO obligation to make their proprietary client/interface/whatever app that runs and makes a pretty X interface for their appliance/ TV recording device/whatever accessible and fun to use and it probably wouldn't benefit many people if they did anyway.
The true benefit of BSD code is that you don't have to publish your source if you use somebody else's code. Depending on the version of the BSD license you may have to obey the advertising clause, but other than that you're home free. Nothing to give back _ever_.
--
Eric is chisled like a Greek Godess
marotti.com
No, it's not GPL, it is BSD, which license allows them to do this. They didn't reimpliment anything, they ported it from BSD, along with a significant portion of NT. Not enough, obviously, but the point is it's perfectly legal because the BSD license allows it. This is why people that don't want MS getting rich off their work use the GPL instead.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The questioner completely glosses over this, as if he thinks they are the same. They are not. The BSD license allows you to rip their code for any purpose whatsoever. OpenSSH is under the BSD license, not the GPL, so that answers the question.
Which doesn't mean you should do what you are talking about, only that you can.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Also, who says you can't call a open source (GPL or LGPL) library with a proprietary program? Netscape does it all the time and it's closed. So does alot of other programs. Heck Oracle is as closed source as can be yet they use a open source resource (namely, the kernel(only one I can be positive about)!). Doesn't all closed source programs running on Linux use something that's GPL'D?? Your FAI example doesn't make alot of sense. You said the PROTOCOLS must be closed. Why does the program that produces the graph have to be closed?? It's not the protocol right???
Gorkman
Include them in your coding team?
Have each of them write a line of code, or a comment. Then all the pilots are technically developers.
So you need not distribute the code and yet all of them can use it.
Is it another GPL loophole?
The GPL exists to protect the authors of Free Software from having their work stolen (yes, I said "stolen") by people who aren't willing to give back to the community.
Seriously, why would you think that you can freely partake of the efforts of a programmer without giving him some sort of compensation? The author of GPLed code, I'm sure, *rejoices* every time he sees a project GPLed because it used his code. That's what he charges for his code: that people who use it must also contribute to Free Software.
Honestly, I don't think it's moral to used GPLed code without GPLing your product that takes advantage of it, regardless of whether you can find a legal loophole for doing so. Doing so violates the intent of the author.
Jeremy
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
I thought the beauty of closed source is you could use open source all day long and well unless you take something blatent and keep it that way - no one is the wiser ...
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
if it's GPL'd you need to release the GPL code you are using and any mods to it. also give credit to the author(s).
i would talk to your manager about it, see if there ok with admiting there using someone elses code. if not, look for a 3rd party package you can include, a comercial one.
seems like a simple question. are you "artical submision" whoring?
-Jon
Streamripper
this is my sig.
I also routinely interface with variometers, not to mention spectrometers, magnotometers, scanning lasers, raw NOAA-14 & GMS-X sat data.
You can write a ballVarioDump.exe that receives commands from switches and parses stdin text, and outputs the vario data as a formatted text stream.
Voila! The hardware interface remains secret & you have a useful tool that can be scripted to drive any, GPL'd or o/wise, graphics interface.
If you're dealing with the BSD license, you're fine. BSD is about Open Source: The source code is there, it is open, and you can do what you like with it.
If it is GPL, you're screwed. GPL is about deliberate incompatibility -- it won't co-exist with any other license.
Fortunately, OpenSSH is BSD.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Novell uses XFree86 as part of NetWare versions 5.0 and 5.1.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
GPL/BSD, whatever floats your boat, it is your code, do whatever. But I personally believe that the GPL can be dangerous, as it actually discourages the reuse of code. And this can seriously hurt a program. Here is an example: Bison is a wonderful tool, a really nice LALR(1) parser generator, and far superior to YACC. However, when you use Bison, it includes a large quantity of code in order to create the parser generator used by the program. 7 or 8 years ago, Bison was under the GPL, and, since it includes a good hunk of itself in any program compiled by bison, the output of Bison was under the GPL. Therefore any program which used Bison to construct it was under the GPL. As a result, nobody used Bison, outside of GCC and class projects. Since then, they changed Bison's liscence so the output is under the LGPL. As a result, it can now be used as a general purpose tool, like GCC.
Nicholas C Weaver
nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu
Test your net with Netalyzr
Surely this is similar to the case of XEmacs/Lucid splitting up from GNU Emacs? Can anyone better qualified to explain do so?
http://blog.grcm.net/
If you tried to use code that I had written and released under the GPL in the way you suggest, you could plan on a (hopefully short) legal process, initiated by me and with the intent of you being forced to release all your own software under the GPL. I use the GPL specifically to prevent exactly the scenario you suggest. Its true that the dynamic link element makes the GPL v2.0 a little fuzzy in this area, but you can bet that I would purse anyone I knew to be using my GPL'ed code in this way. My "layman's GPL" runs something like: you can use this code in your own software, but if you do, i expect you to release your software under the GPL too. My definition of "use", which is not completely clear in the GPL, is "create a program that may at some point cause the execution of instructions produced by compiling my source code within the same execution context and/or address space as the program itself."
You could try contacting the owner of the source and see if they will permit you to use the source under a different (closed) license.
Considering your reasonable position you might be able to persuade them (perhaps with the promise that you will GPL the parts of your code that are not dealing with the protocols and that may be of use to others).
DILBERT: But what about my poem?
I have to say, you guys are blowing an opportunity here. Somebody comes to /. asking about how to comply with Open Source licenses. Helpful informational answers might increase the likelihood that the poster will contribute to the community, or at least, that he will not abuse the rights of the community (wittingly or unwittingly). Answers about what's legal would be helpful. Answers about gray areas would be helpful. Answers about how to approach the owner of the code in the spirit of cooperation that Open Source tries to foster would be helpful.
/. is a highly public forum. Every time you post, you have an opportunity to be an ambassador for the Open Source community to the rest of the world.
Instead, we get attacks on the poster's integrity. We get flame wars about whether GPL is good or bad. We get moral diatribes. None of these help this guy do the right thing or promote wider use of Open Source code. If I were the original poster, I would have tuned out this conversation in disgust about 100 posts ago.
If you feel passionate about Open Source--as many of you obviously do--then you would do well to remember that
Now, if you don't want to take that opportunity, that's fine. I'm not questioning your right to free speech here. I'm just saying that, given the way the community is responding to questions from potential allies outside the community, don't be surprised if the world isn't ready to embrace Open Source with open arms.
It doesn't make sense to me why it's outrageous to think that a kid could make a few bucks on a chess program using a networking protocol (BSD code at that), but it would be raving if every law firm started using a free OS and software for its reports and billing. Both benefit from someone else's work, but one guy gets clobbered by a bunch of zealots.
Should every document made with KWord, every image made with GIMP, and every packet that passes through LRP code be only used for the advancement of open source projects? Why bash only the programmer that wants to draw from the pool? At least s/he may be in a spot to give back to the community on other projects.
Here's a question...
I am implementing a record database for a hospital radio station.
It uses a Postgres database, and uses libpq++ to connect to it.
The main program itself is C++ with a ncurses interface (no X on the machine).
The coding is *really* lame (I've been doing it in my spare time and haven't put all the effort in I should have). Should I release this code, or should I not bother?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
What does this mean?
And that is the extent of the GPL. Any questions?
1. make the GPL components callable via RPC or CORBA.
the modifications must in this case be released into the community again, so the benefit for it would be, a reusable RPC/CORBA code with a likely cleaned API.
2. build a wrapper lib for the GPLed code.
this must be fair easy to do that automatically by analysing an existing shared object file. then, link the non-GPL program with this created stub lib, which dynamically loads the GPL-ed library of your desire. if the GPL codebase is usable right from the scratch, there is no intellectual property profit for the community.
If it's under the BSD license you are under no obligation to share any of the code. You only have to let them know that thier code IN THERE and credit them.
I would LOVE to contribute to the community everything except that which I may not through the dictates of an outside agency, which is maybe fifteen hundred lines out of forty-thousand odd lines of code.
So isolate the proprietary stuff and the GPL stuff in separate executables. The GPL virus does NOT infect independent executables by "mere aggregation" on a storage medium if they don't share any code.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is nothing wrong with just cloning the interface AFAIK.
Apparently The Tetris Company didn't think so for a while and sent cease-and-desist form letters to authors of falling tetramino games. (Eventually, they realized they were pissing in the wind, and only sent letters to the authors of games who called their work "Tetris" in violation of the trademark.)
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I fly hang gliders and have an FAI approved vario/barometer and haven't heard of such a restriction. I've checked the sporting code here sc3c.pdf and don't see such a restriction. The restrictions state that an official observer must use approved software to retrieve the data from a sealed unit, which is sensible. Please can you point me at the protocol disclosure restrictions?
Paul
FAI requirements
Protocol is protected by digital signatures. No requirement for non-disclosure of the protocol. In fact they prefer that you use the published IGC File transfer format
Paul
If that is the point of the GPL it should be stated explicitely in the GPL. As the GPL is now, the original poster can do it without being in violation. So don't bash the guy, bash the GPL.
I'm planning to rob a bank. If I dress up really decently, and use polite language (and a nice looking gun) while adressing the bank staff, will I get away with it?
It seems to me quite reasonable for the bank to give me some of their money. They've got so much of it.
there should really be a lgpl libssh around, but i guess they never made one.
no, you can't wrap gpl code in a shared library, lgpl it, and say "whoopee, i did it". you would be lowering the license level of the code, which you cannot do.
this is one of the drawbacks of the gpl -- if the fundamental architecture isn't properly thought out, it makes life pretty difficult for *users* of gpl code, which is what you want to do...*use* some gpl code.
maybe that would be a cool thing to do...take the bsd code, and make a nice libssh. you can't lgpl that, though, i don't think, but you could be nice and give it away under the bsd/autistic license.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
You just don't get it, man.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
-
GNU-GPL code, on the other hand, is a different issue. Being a complete asshole, RMS will probably track you down and cut your penis off if you include GPL'ed code in a closed-source project. I think the only way out of this unpleasant situation would be to make the GPL'ed portions of code available separately, with source available.
Maybe now it becomes clear that RMS is a hypocrite... He professes the greatness and necessity of free software, and then he proceeds to restrict it with his own license.
The original poster seemed to think that it was proper to allow your code to be freely used... I don't agree - the GPL is the better option.I just don't understand why some would think that software should be released BSD so that others can freely use it in their programs -- programs which will not be free in any way.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
But never mind, I assume you wrote this out of ignorance and innocence, and not bad will... so here's the answer:
It seems to me to be quite reasonable to include code from open source projects in closed source projects
...
it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly
Why?
All I can observe is:
That being said, you are lucky that OpenSSL and OpenSSH are both BSD licensed programs (IIRC) and thus you can do with it whatever you want. But I am really concerned about your attitude towards Open Source. Why the heck is it "silly" to make your own program open? Why on earth did you choose it to be closed anyway?
I know I sound like a hippie father trying to understand why his son joined the army, but please do consider this. Open Source has got tons of benefits (see here for more info) PLUS idealistic advantages (see here for more info). Why go closed? Your program would hardly have any impact to the Linux community in closed source form, nor would people contribute to your work, etc.
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
Completely bogus. I can't "force" you to do anything.
OK then. Microsoft can't force us to do anything either. You must accept that to be consistant.
Yes. You *can* force us to do things. There are already a few things I can think of where the best tool for the job is GPL, and there are no close seconds. Under that circumstance, the choice that we must make is a direct result of programmers choosing the GPL.
Back when only a few people were GPL'ing; your statement about not being able to force people might have been true. Now there is huge and growing market penetration. Now you are no longer the rebels. You are the authorities. You must deal with your power now. Like all rebel movements that come to power, the Free Software movement is likely to be very authoritarian. We'll see.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The GPL is pretty clear that you must release all of the code that you link with any GPL'd code you use. Section 2 spells it out about as clearly as possible:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:- a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
- b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
- c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
It's hard to speak for other authors/programmers, but it's been my impression that many choose the GPL specifically because of these terms.The fact that your application has a requirement to be closed source doesn't give you a right to use other people's code in violation of their license terms. Just because it would "really help" you doesn't change a thing. As far as the GPL is concerned, you're out of luck (at least that's how I read it, IANAL). I personally don't like closed source software, and when I release code under the GPL, I want it to help whoever gets it, and other GPL'd projects, but never a closed-source-friendly code base.
But never is a really long time... copyright does eventually expire, and in the meantime, you can always contact the author and ask if they'll release it to you under a license more to your liking. Offering money probably helps your chances.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
You can play games like building your closed program to use the GPL code, and requiring that whoever uses your program gets the GPL code themselves, so that you don't have to redistribute it that'll keep you from violating the GPL. If you give out the GPL code in some form as part of your application or give it out with the intent that it be used with your closed applications, then your application must be GPL compatible.
LGPL programs, on the other hand, can be "linked" into proprietary programs. With LGPL code you can include the LGPL code in your application distribution as an object library, that you application can call on. The LGPL libraries must be distinct from the propietary application elements, and in a form where other applications can use the library routines as well. If modifications were made the LGPL libraries must continue to function without the closed application code (library interaction in a sensible unbaised way so other people can use the same LGPL libraries) and all modifications must be made available as source. When giving out your application binaries along with the LGPL object libraries, you must also make the LGPL source code available. With LGPL you don't need to open source any other part of your program, as long as you keep the LGPL libraries distinctly separate in the way you package it all together and give it out to people.
-jef
Unfortunately, games are nothing like operating systems and the vast majority of them require no printed manuals, no support (hopefully), and no regular distributions of CDs. As a result, the money making apparatus that makes Red Hat work is not practical for game developers and we don't want to see code get into use that forces open source on a game that may start out as a lark but end up being a commercial success (ala. CounterStrike).
To reiterate, the GPL can often be shown to be overboard as a license. As an author you should use what you feel comfortable with but your choice may limit the use of your work in ways you don't forsee and do not want.
Sigs are for people who started using the net _after_ '86.
+5 Funny
Yes, but they released their changes back into the world for everyone to use (aside from the TiVo Application itself! That's different.)
Here:
http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html
Then again, we're all a bunch of zealot free software hippies, and I'm sure RMS would complain.
It's not about cash. Stallman initially created the GPL after he had some problems with closed-source software that the manufacturer refused to fix. He didn't want this to happen to anyone else, so he decided to create his own versions of the Unix tools with the source code freely available so that anyone who used them and wanted to customise them, could, without an corporation making commercial decisions as to what needed to be changed. The GPL doesn't preclude making money from their software, it just means that the people you sell it to have the right to customise it for their own use.
If the code is under the GPL then you have to give it all out. All, not just a section. This was changed in the LPGL license due to this limitation in the GPL license. A project I am working on has ran into this. Unless your program is completely open source and free then it is very likely to conflict with the GPL license.
I am planning on also using GPL'd code to help further a proprietary product. My solution is to write a stand-alone server that furnishes the services required, and is 100% GPL'd. Into this server I will place any GPL'd code that makes my life easier. The interface will be open and documented, so others can use if if they have reason. At the same time, my Proprietary code will be able to use it too. I'm pretty sure this is legal, and I'm hoping that folks will think it's also the morally correct thing to do.
"More Weight." --The Crucible
The GPL is all about being a hypocrit. Open source zealots don't like how you can't benefit from closed-source projects so they will make sure closed-source won't benefit from open-source either. I know that on the project I work on the licensing creates way too many headaches.
If it's all about being free and open why don't we just make everything public domain and not restrict users. If closed-source projects use open-source code, they aren't stealing profits from open-source code because it's open anyways. And if closed-source projects used the open-source code wouldn't that make the closed-source projects better because they are using open, tested code? My flame for today, I guess it's just because of all the licensing headaches I get at work.
The GPL is more than a political statement. It is a choice that I or another programmer make about how their work is to be used. I am sorry that the terms of the GPL hinder your work, but you have no more right to demand to use the code that I or any other programmer who published under the GPL writes for free then you have a right to force your plumber to work for free or your doctor to work for free.
This is really what the GPL is about. It is about making an intentional choice about how your labors as a programmer can be used by others.
I choose to contribute to the GPL software community. I do not choose to give my work away for free. My payment for my work is the other contributions of the other memebers of the community, including those of people who modify or reuse my code. You don't have to contribute to this community if you don't want to, you just can't use our resources for purposes which don't contribute.
When code is published under an open source license it is a choice by the programmers writing that code to make it available to others under a specific set of restrictions. It is wrong of you to try to take the work of those programmers and use it in ways they explicitely do not approve of by virtue of their choice of licensing agreement.
If they choose to publish under a BSD style license you are free to reuse their code and incorporate it into a closed source product. That was the way the people who wrote the code intended you to use it.
Many of us who publish under the GPL feel differently about how we want our work used. We do not object to others who are contributing to our community on the same terms reusing our code, but we do object to people simply taking our work and using it as a free ride. When you release derived works under the GPL you are in a sense paying us for our work by enriching our community. When you simply take our labor and use it in your closed source product you are stealing our work as surely as someone who pirates your closed source software is stealing yours.
Please respect the wishes of those of us who choose to contribute our time, efforts, and talents under the GPL and respect both the letter and the spirit of that license.
Then you write a graphing application that communicates with the variod - this program can use GPL'ed code, and gets released under a GPL.
This way the more useful and general purpose part is contributed back to the open-source community, and the closed source daemon can be released without violating the FAI's stupid regulations. Also if you publish the interface spec, it's easy for other people to write variods for other varios without having to cope with change control for your vario client. And if people don't like your client, then they can write their own. This would be a reasonable way to write the code, even if it there wasn't a licensing issue.
-Fzz
I fail to see how GPL can constrain you as long as you don't distribute your software.
... I would just prefer to write software that my fellow pilots can use too.
Well, I'm talking about the version that I distribute to other programming-challenged pilots here. I'm quite aware that I can use whatever GPL code I want however I please for my own software
is there a reason why you can't just release those 38500 lines of code as open source?
The immediate reason is that there isn't a clean separation between the device-communicating code and the rest of it, so the easiest way to avoid any kerfluffle with FAI is to keep it all closed.
I certainly could put the device code into its own library/daemon as people have suggested, and it seems that there's some level of separation of the two at which the GPL would be technically adhered to in the main program -- but that strikes me as obviously subverting the spirit of the GPL so the GPL crusaders would still be mad with me anyway. *shrug* I'll probably give it a try next time I do a major rev and see what happens...
If you are using a device and software to take measurements for indicating a world record, why would you NOT want the software to be public anyway?
The way that aerial records work is that you submit the documentation to them along with the instrument you carried on the flight, and they and ONLY they open up the instrument and see if its recordings match your claims.
It's easy to tell if a device has mechanically been tampered with, not so easy to tell if its been electronically tampered with, so the advent of communications-enabled varios got them in a bit of a snit. The current status is that a very few electronic varios are certified, but under strict conditions about who is allowed to know what the protocols are.
Yes, it's security through obscurity, yes it doesn't stop you or me hacking the device for a second, but pointing that out to them would not let us open the source, it would just make them decertify electronic devices. People who buy these things wouldn't find that a worthwhile tradeoff, trust me on this one.
They are the administrative implementation of 2.6.3:
"2.6.3 Memory used for flight data. The memory used for storage of the flight data to be used in the flight verification process should be of a type and design so that it cannot be accessed, combined (such as in a storage device with software partitions), altered or corrupted by other data legitimately or otherwise present in the equipment..."
Their interpretation is that allowing public disclosure of the protocols is an unacceptable risk of contravening the above provision.
And, if you're not distributing this application, what difference does any of this make?
:)
Well, that's the whole problem -- I *DO* want other Ball owners to use it. If I didn't the GPL wouldn't be any kind of a concern, I know.
As for the driver thing -- I thought that would be unacceptably subverting the spirit of the GPL, but it certainly seems that most people think it'd be fine. I'll probably do that next rev then
it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly. Any thoughts on this?
:)
I see you're new here
What you're missing is that the GPL is a political tool, not a source code license.
As a source code license, of COURSE it is utterly ludicrous that you should have to open up source code unrelated to what you're using.
As a political tool, hey, whatever you can get away with to force other people to release THEIR code, no matter that it has nothing to do with YOUR contribution.
This also puts me in an annoying situation. I write free-as-in-beer software to download flight data from the Ball Varios variometers. Now, there's a number of GPL projects it would be nice to include code from, graphing libraries for instance; but if I did, I would have to open ALL the source, which includes the part that communicates with the hardware device, although that obviously has nothing to do with a graphing library for instance.
This is a problem, because the Ball varios are certified by FAI as being acceptable as documentation of a world record flight. And one of FAI's conditions for that certification is that the protocols for communicating with these devices may not be made public. Which means, not releasing the source code containing those protocols. Which means, I can't use any GPLd code at all, no matter how completely unrelated it is to the actual problem and how perfectly willing I'd be to contribute back any work I did to the source I used.
So my users lose out on functionality they'd get quicker otherwise, and the Open Source community loses out on the work I would put towards something licensable.
Now whose interests exactly is the GPL serving here? Nobody's that I can see.
(Don't bother saying "change FAI's mind". They have no motivation to do so whatsoever; there's no way you'd ever get even time to explain the CONCEPT of Open Source, never mind why their certification process should accomodate the GPL...)
After all, your perspective is flawed and, unfortunately, rather selfish.
While this is a potentially accurate statement, it also contradicts your later comments about competitive advantages -- something that I'm sure those of us in business will agree is a good thing, but is also inherently "selfish".
To me and my code under the BSD licesnse, someone else is using code *I* chose to put under a BSD license. And that someone, and all the parties that end of using that code, closed or not, is benefiting from it.
Perhaps so. However, this is analagous to us agreeing that I will give your business $20MM, on the condition that you agree to give it away to other companies in your area. You accept the money, then use it as part of your companies operating funds, claiming that since you are spending it with local vendors, they are gaining the benefit. While they are gaining *some* benefit, it is not the one to which we originally agreed, and your company is taking a significantly greater benefit from it by deliberately violating our original agreement.
GPL licensing simply does not and give up that benefit for stilted present gains of a few lines (if any) of badly mangled code.
If the code was so badly mangled, why would anyone else want to use it in the first place? Yes, there is some code out there that is not particularly impressive. On the other hand, it must have *some* merits, or it wouldn't be being used.
They take their profits and distribute them to the entities that made the original code.
Really? Out of curiosity, how many documented examples of this can you provide?
My .02 worth,
Draconomicon
You must be PRESENT to win!
I love all the GPL zealots who get their panties in a pretzel everytime someone ponders using Open Source code in something that isn't (either because it can't be, or the author just chooses not to). Sure, the GPL is legally binding. If someone puts their code under the GPL, then follow it if you intend on using it. What I do disagree with, is the notion of it being "Free". "Free" is the BSD license. Do what you want. "Free" is not "forcing someone to be free". That is, in my opinion, worse than closed-source; not only are you limiting what a developer can do with something, you're being a giant hypocrite by declaring that you're "freeing" code. I work for a software firm that does not release their source code. That doesn't make me evil. It just means I make my living doing something I like. If I want to release code, I will, otherwise, keep your nose out of it. (And I'm sure someone else will mention it, but I'm pretty sure OpenSSL is under the BSD license, so hey, go nuts.)
I find it pretty funny... After RMS talks about how much he is against corporate greed and the almighty dollar, I find the following link at gnu.org: http://www.gnu.org/order/order.html I think the prices are a little steep for a group proclaiming "free"dom. Also, I went to barnes and noble the other day, and there was a book book called: "GNU MAKE" by Richard Stallman. It was shrink-wrapped. FREEDOM?? OPEN SOURCE?? I think not ----kz45
If you want to ditribute this for no benefit to you/your company, then you'll not have any problem in distributing the source code.
If you want to distribute this project for your own benefit (which may or may not involve money) then you have a moral responsibility to share the code because your code has only come into existance because someone else shared their code with you.
That's the morality of it; the legality of it is that any project which depends on GPL'd code (source or binary) to work must be GPL'd too. "Depends" on here means that the GPL'd section is either the basis of actual code or so important to the project that it must be offered by you to the users of the project.
An interesting legal point here seems to be that if you are so sure that the GPL'd parts are already available to the user that you can refuse to supply them, then you need not GPL your own material. So a binary for *nix which calls the "touch" command need not be GPL'd unless you distribute it with the binary or code for "touch". Seek legal advice before trying this approach.
If you have a problem with this then don't use other people's code (at least people that release code under the GPL).
Those /.ers who are comparing this with DVD are skipping the morality section and the legality angle.
No one sane is arguing that copying movies and/or music and distributing the copies without permission is right or legal. It has never been either. But preventing fair use (ie I make a copy of a CD to listen to in my car, or a copy of a DVD on my hard drive so I can play it back under Linux) is not moral or legal (really, it's not legal according to US law, getting a judge that understands this seems difficult though).
Revolutions occur when the gap between moral and legal grows too wide for too many people.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This will violate the GPL. If you are wrinting a closed source project you should either right the code yourself without plagurizing the Open Source code.. or pay your way and license what you need. This is why the GPL is written, to protect the authors of the GPL'ed code from acts like this. It this was my code and it was published under the GPL I would sue the everyone and everycompany involved with taking my code to a closed source project.
Now imagine I use Linux (GPL) and use it as a plain Samba server (yes, I know...lame but a common use). Of course I want to back up -say- at least a week. As a good sysadmin I write a shell script that tars all relevant files, then gzips the tar and then dumps that tar on tape. Both tar, gzip (and ksh, the shell I use) are GPL. By you logic, I should opensource my (stupid and trivial) backup script because I *use* those tools?
I know it's a stupid example, but many many applications (closed source like inhouse applications) are based upon the services of opensource shell tools. Opensourcing those scripts would be senseless (imagine the net flooded by zillions of stupid backup scripts like mine above).
I consider the opensource movenment as a very noble philosophy, but one should not overdo it.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
As you guessed IANAL, and I can't keep my eyes open whil trying to read such licences. I'm sorry, I should have thought before posting my comment. (But then, most of the time you can say that about the vast majority of all posts around here ;-) )
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
thou!!! i thought i was logged in when I posted that!! :)
puck
I agree that the GPL is pretty clear, but I read it slightly differently: if you use the code, you should GPL your own code.
According to opensource.org any of GPL, LGPL, BSD license, MIT license, etc. qualify your software as open source, but the GPL requires that derivative works "be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License [the GPL]."
...Andrew
Well, OpenSSH and OpenSSL are under the BSD licesnse, I believe... so you shouldn't have a problem.
You can do what you want with BSD-licensed programs, so long as you credit the original author in the manner described in the license. Closed source or not, you just need to make a copyright notice available. Read it carefully to make sure you are in full compliance. But certainly, you can use it in closed-source software.
GNU-GPL code, on the other hand, is a different issue. Being a complete asshole, RMS will probably track you down and cut your penis off if you include GPL'ed code in a closed-source project. I think the only way out of this unpleasant situation would be to make the GPL'ed portions of code available separately, with source available.
Maybe now it becomes clear that RMS is a hypocrite... He professes the greatness and necessity of free software, and then he proceeds to restrict it with his own license.
This is one reason, albeit a minor one, that I switched to FreeBSD. Better license, better code (more stable, longer USB support), and the ability to run Linux binaries.
PS -- Sorry if you're a woman, making that penis comment. If you are a woman, he'll probably take your left breast instead.
A new year calls for a new signature.
I am thinking of a project that would be available to users over the web. Most of the stuff I need is BSD anyway, but there are some pieces of GPL'ed code that would be useful. Since I plan to sell the service 'produced' by the code, and not the code itself, would I have to make the code freely available to anyone who asked for it, as in 'click here to download source', or can I keep it to myself until I make available the program/binary itself (where the GPL license is clear about including source)?
.net and all...
IMHO this question is an important one for the GPL in general, what with the move towards 'web services',
Also, am I right in that unless explicitly stated, code released under BSD can be re-released under GPL, but not vice-versa?
Any help would be greatly appreciated by this newbie.
I do it all the time.
Anyways, looked in the .exe file for Windows' FTP lately?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, post on Slashdot about it.
I had a somewhat witty reply, but the lameness filter ate it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, post on Slashdot about it.
Noble? It seems emminently practical if the whole world were Open-Source. If NT or 9X is giving you one too many BSoDs, you can fire up your VC++ debuggers, your MingWin devtools, your VI editors, and actually fix, debug, and diagnose your problem.
That's one aspect. The other aspect is 'freedom', in the sense that having bought a copy of NT, or 9X, I should be able to tinker with it, in the same way that if I bought a Ford or Chevy, I can pop open the hood, tweak the manifolds, bores, or just do my monthly maintainence, without *having* to go to the mechanic, if I am so skilled or inclined.
NT or 9X is not so generous towards us. We bought it, but we cannot tinker, fix, or modify.
Your scheme of a giant shareable code-base that others can use as they see fit is equivalent to a world where everything is GPL, in the sense that all the code is out there, and everything is open sourced, and anyone can tinker, load, compile, modify, etc.
The minute your world of shareable code starts to hide and obscure code is the minute the GPL would kick in to force the world to *remain* shareable code.
Yet without the GPL as an enforcing mechanism, what would stop the shareable code base from evaporating with time, as people keep developments and changes private and proprietary?
The GPL is one method towards which we can attain this giant shareable code base, as well as a method towards which we maintain it's status.
Otherwise, if there were no clauses of returning code to the public benefit, just through attrition and age, code would probably just disappear with time.
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
From GPL 2:
I fail to see how GPL can constrain you as long as you don't distribute your software.
some I've released into the public domain
Just curious, why? I personally like public domain a bit more than GPL myself, but I'm also some kind of nut. I'm sort of curious as to why _you_ (or others out there) do it.
Personally, I don't care what people do with my code. I get warm fuzzies knowing my code is out there, even if all it's doing is helping some poor coder working for SomethingSoft.com. I don't expect anything out of my code.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro." - HST
Weren't the words 'steal' and 'theft' outlawed by the GNU philosophy as being bad metaphors for criminal acts in the material world. 'Stealing' by making a copy does not deprive the owners from continuing to use the 'stolen' goods. Interesting to see that this choice of words is now part of GNU-advocacy (at least of this AC's).
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I got a flamebait for that? Bad moderation at work :(
-Bucky
The few, the proud, the conservative.
-Bucky
In fact, GPL is a license like a binary-only license, only that you get a much better deal: not only do you get the executables, you also get the source code. You can even redistribute it, and you don't have to pay for it. And if you want to reuse the code commercially, you can license it from its author.
But that doesn't make the GPL a "political tool" (a political tool for what, one might ask?) any more or less than it makes your favorite binary-only, costly, we-own-your-firstborn-son license a political tool. At best, one might argue that the GPL is used as a marketing tool by some companies.
As a political tool, hey, whatever you can get away with to force other people to release THEIR code, no matter that it has nothing to do with YOUR contribution.
You aren't forced to do anything. If you don't like the license, don't use the code and don't contribute to it. In fact, in some cases, I would fully agree that it is a bad idea to base one's software on a GPL'ed library.
There are a bunch of pragmatic exceptions to that rule, involving "system libraries". But it is unlikely that authors who placed their code under the GPL intended those exceptions in your case. Even if you can legally get away exploiting a loophole in the GPL, I would consider that unethical.
If in doubt, contact the author and have them clarify any ambiguities in writing. They may ask you to sign a separate commercial license and pay for it. And, given that you intend to charge for your software, you should be happy to pay for their software.
If it's covered by the BSD license, the intent and letter of the license should be clear: you can almost certainly use it.
Open source the games, charge for the campaign, graphics, whatever isn't in to core engine. That way you get to sell your game, and other people can modify the engine/write games for the engine. If the engine becomes popular you can make a killing on mods for it. This way you can use GPL code, sell your games, and keep the open-source community happy.
a) to allow everyone to learn from and develop programs and apps, with those programs remaining free as in speech (GPL)
b) to allow everyone to use these programs to produce whatever they like (which may involve LGPL libs)
Now, if I want to use gcc, it is useless unless I write my own C / C++ libraries, or use the GNU LGPL'd ones. I think that in the spirit of the GPL, although I am linking to those libraries, my own program is just a product of gcc and the libs, and should remain my copyright if I so desire.
Would you like pics made with the gimp to be GPL'd too?
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of open development models, but I do think there are other ways of writing and distributing software which are perfectly legitimate. I earn my living writing software, and I'd rather be on a wage than be some kind of saintly priest of software relying on donations.
I respect the FSF, because I think it's an extreme voice pulling the world in the right direction.
Flame away!
gpig
Funny you should mention ftp.exe as I was just looking at it before I read your post. I don't think that Microsoft stole any GPL'ed code (if it even is GPL'ed), they probably just cloned the existing user interface that UNIX has had for years. The underlying code is probably very different (the differences between win2k's ftp.exe and cygwin's ftp.exe is about 200kb.). There is nothing wrong with just cloning the interface AFAIK.
opened up ftp.exe in dos edit, binary mode, and what do I see 1/2 way in? Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
What seems to be yer problem bub? OpenSSH and OpenSSL are under a BSD license. There is no GPL involved. Maybe you should investigate the code you wanna use before you put yourself through too much trouble doin somethin unrelated....like researchin GPL.
--
Tres_Status
stephen
Unless you've registered a copyright on your code -- and my understanding is that this isn't really done on Open Source -- you couldn't sue for any damages. What would you sue for? Emotional damage?
:::: Mike Snyder
reading these comments it seems there are a good number of programmers who agree with the original poster. That if i create a networking protocol and don't care about getting code for a chess game, I just care about networking code. Why can't we create a new license under which I could release my code. It would basically say you can use my code only if you release the additions and modification to my networking code, but you do not have to open source the entire application which make suse of this code. GPL can still exist but so can this new license. If this is already similar to the other two licenses mentioned here than just ignore me, I'm sorta new to the whole opensource world, but it seems the bsd and lgpl have slightly different intents.
Personally, I do not hold with principles or morals, but I try not to rile others unduly. What is the point? If you feel the same, you should have a similar attitude.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
They do put my werk on thr frnot paeg... i own slashdit rememeber?? I putt all my werk all over thsi sight, cant you tel?
-- CmdrTaco