Slashdot Mirror
For OpenBSD, "No More Apache Updates"
joshmccormack writes "On June 6th Henning Brauer, an OpenBSD developer announced on one of the OpenBSD mailing lists that the version of Apache shipped with OpenBSD will stay with 1.3.29, due to Apache's license changes. There will be bug fixes, but no more updates. Discussion on blogs, websites and mailing lists on what's next bring up some interesting ideas and strong opinions. Difference of opinion and control have been catalysts to the growth of OpenBSD in the past. Will this be like the birth of pf in OpenBSD, or even the start of OpenBSD itself?"
Direct links: fail.
More info to read up on: fail.
Reference to the relevant list / list archive: fail.
Perhaps this story could be fleshed out a little ?
I'll google it or use some other news source to find more about this, but...
life+universe+everything=42
The only way this is even close to what happend with ipf/pf would be if the OpenBSD folks decided to write their own web server and release it under the BSD license, which isn't going to happen because they're OS folks, not web server folks.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
I disagree, one of OpenBSD's goals has always been to provide a base system that is as unrestricted as possible. It sounds to me like they are just taking steps to ensure they don't introduce a more restrictive license to the base system.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Theo makes his living by selling packaged OpenBSD install disks (with CVS checkouts of the source, precompiled packages, etc.). The fact that he sells OpenBSD to pay his bills doesn't make it any less free then RedHat selling Linux.
Also if you want to use a CD based install, try here.
Don't count on it, son.
i tutes "community support" for their license fiasco. Maybe Apache is next.
Every time something like this comes up...he turns it into something good. His reputation grows, and the idea of quality software over Every Imaginable Feature spreads.
I doubt there will be an OpenBSD replacement for Apache. However, Theo knows one thing most people forget: you can whine and moan all you want, but when you accept the product, they win. However, if a few teams stand up and say, "This is NOT acceptable, we will NOT tollerate it", maybe something can change. XFree86 has managed to marginalize themselves, and convinced themselves that a whole lot of nothing:
http://www.xfree86.org/distro-support.html
const
de Raadt's stance on licensing is the proper road to take, and commendable. From my observations, Debian is the only other operating system group that is as dedicated to free software as OpenBSD is.
What are other OS vendors doing? It's clear that the new license isn't GNU compatible, and I think that Debian is also going into a direction similar to OpenBSD on this matter.
Anyone care to elaborate on this?
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Oh... hmm... it appears there isn't an FA to R.
It sounds to me like they are just taking steps to ensure they don't introduce a more restrictive license to the base system.
Reading through the Apache 2.0 license, I cannot find anything that is more restrictive than before. It's actually less restrictive in some areas, in an attempt to be compatible with the GPL. The two major differences are:
1) Legalese. The original BSD-like Apache license was quite loose in its wording. This scares the crap out of most corporate lawyers ("OMG, there's no clause imdemnifying us against jaywalking!"). So the new license has been tightened up with lawyer-friendly language.
2) Patent license. The old license was a copyright license. It didn't cover patents. The new one does. You're gaining rights as a user with this.
I really don't understand what OpenBSD's problem is with this. It's a free license. It's a "copycenter" license. It's unrestricted and unencumbered. I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
From the OpenBSD perspective, you are completely missing the point:
GPL: OpenBSD does not consider the GPL to be a "free" license. Becoming more "GPL compatable" may be viewed as a benefit to the GNU and Linux people, but it is VERY much against the goal of the BSD projects. Restricting ANYONE'S use of a product is not a good thing in our mind.
1) "Legalese" is a bad thing. If you gotta get lawyers involved to understand it, it is bad. BY ITSELF, that's grounds for rejection.
2) When did software patents or anything regarding patents and software become a good thing (at least as commonly used)?
The new license is much longer and more complex. This is a bad thing (in a BSD advocate's view).
The BSD license is very simple: Start with the basic rights of a copyright holder, and release ALL of them except the right to identified as the author, giving the USER FULL RIGHTS TO DO BASICLY ANYTHING WITH THE CODE other than claim/change authorship or sue for dammages.
Use it. Imbed it. Give it away. Sell it. With or without source code. WHATEVER. Now...add extra words to the license: HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY GET MORE FREE? Anything you add is "taking away" rights. Anything you do to "protect" yourself is again, taking away from the potential userbase of a product.
The point of the GPL seems to be to keep Open Source software from getting utilized by commercial software vendors. That's a noble goal -- you work for free, you want others to be able to enjoy your work for free. But, you are saying the CODE is free, not the useage of it.
The Point of the BSD license is to get the software USED in any sense of the word. BSD authors would prefer that their good software be USED in commercial products, rather than having the commercial vendors writing more flawed, or incompatable, or alternative protocols.
Do you think Cicso would have put a GPL'd SSH into their products? Probably not: they'd have done their own management application, which would only run on Windows machines or a few Unixes, or stuck with telnet. GPL advocates would probably say that was a "victory for freedom of the code", as the (hypothetical) GPL-SSH code wasn't used to make a profit by the evil Cisco. BSD advocates would prefer that the code be FREELY USED by ANYONE, including Cicso, Microsoft, Sun, HP, Intel, Motorola, IBM, and anyone else. Restricting ANYONE, no matter how "evil" they are perceived to be by someone is very much against the point of the BSD license.
This is a bad thing (in a BSD advocate's view)
I am a BSD advocate. The license is certainly longer, and in a way, that's bad because fewer people can understand it. But my understanding is that it is necessary. In the past we used licenses to tell other hackers that they had permission to use our software. But we are no longer a community of hackers, we now have lawsuit happy lawyers among us. When you have major lawyer-bound organization using (and contributing) to Apache, you can't hold on to the pollyanna licenses of the past.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Actually, it's quite the opposite. OpenBSD's creed of "Security first" condemns it to a sort of "media obscurity" (nothing kills a story like "It doesn't do anything fancy, and just works") yet Theo's colourful disagreements with practically everyone under the sun keeps the mindshare of OpenBSD alive and well.
Couple that with their habit of doing things differently from everyone else just once in a while to keep track of who's watching, and you have a winner.
Reading the comments at undeadly.org, it seems the big beef is with a clause that covers patent issues of any code as well as copyright issues.
Basically, the clause says that if you have any patent claims to the code that you contribute (or is it just use? I'm not sure.) then you irrevocably grant license to others for those patents and if you sue , then you can't use Apache.
I'm unsure as to how this is a bad thing. Most "free" software licences were written before software patents were a big issue, and therefore only deal with software as a copyrightable, and not a patentable entity. Just as software code must be updated to deal with new operating enviroments, so legal licensing code must be updated to deal with a changing legal enviroment.
The new clause forces patent holders to play nice as well as copyright holders.
Would it be better to encourage lawsuits over patent issues?
evanchik.net
I don't think this will be a real problem. If Apache is no longer allowed in the OpenBSD base system it can simply be moved to ports/packages, and it will be just a pkg_add away - just as is now the case with Apache 2.0.
JP
FOOL. The GPL does not restrict anyone from using GPL licensed code. It restricts the ability to hinder or encumber the code and that is the choice that users must make. BSD is free beer, certainly--no wonder corporations love to suck it up. GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not. You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is. I suggest that the GPL is far more important to software as a result. I don't care whether CISCO or whomever makes money--I care that quality code remains in the community. (AND note, they can equally well make money with GPL'd code--they only have to share back their modifications. Is that really asking too much?)
I hope he means the US and EU governments here. Had there been no software pattents under incredibly lax oversight with the subsequent abuse thereof, the Apache Software Foundaton wouldn't be forced to write this clause into the license.
Back around 1995, development of the NCSA sort-of-free web server was starting to die out, and developers who had been producing a set of patches to the NCSA project decided to "fork" their development branch.
After the fork, the majority of development effort concentrated in the new "Apache" project, and the NCSA HTTPd died out about a year later.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
they only have to share back their modifications
Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.
See how it is restrictive now?
LGPL, that is a much less restrictive license.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
See how it is restrictive now?
Hi. Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I'm fully aware of that point. As I said, it is user restrictive, not code restrictive. For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code? On what grounds can your ethical argument other than, "Everything for Silas!" Why should it be a one way street where the code you are acquiring is made to work for you (free beer) but you give nothing back?
If anything, the GPL promotes more code being made freely available than any other license since every other license seems to end at a piriah's doorstep. To be charitible, your plan is not really helpful to anyone except yourself. It doesn't even help the code you are embedding into your codebase since you aren't improving the code you are appropriating but rather, as far as you are concerned, you are improving your codebase.
Again, when code is merged, who's to say which code is which anymore? It is a merging of two to make a new whole. Why should that merging be a one way street that starts in the "free code" (as in freedom) community and end up in the "closed code" (as in proprietary) community?
Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are? LGPL is a fine license, it just doesn't do for code what the GPL does.
Well, first, I would like to apologize for the AC asshole that replied to your post. Clearly brainless.
Second, I didn't say anything that contradict your post. BSD and GPL are different licenses. I totally understand the different approaches.
One difference, though, is that you tend to discard BSD against GPL which is - to you - better. You have to understand that different people may think differently.
Las of all, one of your last statements: "Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?".
On that I will disagree. GPL is more restrictive than BSD: I don't think you can find one situatons where someone would be impeached or forced to do something with BSD and not with GPL. The opposite trivially doesn't stand.
Don't be mistaken. This doesn't mean that a developper of BSD code will get more reward than a developper of GPL code. It means that whoever you are (integrator, developer, user), you have less restrictions with a piece of code under the BSD license than with a GPL code.
No flame intended, not quality judgement, just a fair statement: Less restrictions.
You want to use GPL code, everything has to be GPL
You want to use BSD code, go ahead
You want to write GPL code. All of it has to be that way
You want to write BSD code, go ahead.
The list could go on and on, proving one point: BSD is less restrictive than GPL. Nothing else.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Hi again. No need to apologize for the AC (but thanks)--it comes with the teritory of having an opinion, particularly here at /., yes? Still, I'd rather that someone like that didn't complain about difficulties making money using someone else's code. If that AC wants to roll their own codebase from scratch, more power to them.
I'm not sure exactly how I gave the impression that I don't realize that other people have different opinions than mine--I surely appreciate that as a somewhat obvious fact. I don't live in a vaccuum. I'm trying to outline why I have made my choices, for better or for worse.
I think I understand what you are getting at in terms of BSD being less restrictive and perhaps I mischaracterized that part. Indeed, I thought I already agreed with that point. I am maintaining, though, that what is being counted as "restrictive" in your outline is the users (in this case, the user is anyone using the source as part of their own project) rights. The main difference I see between the GPL and say BSD is that once code is committed under the GPL, it (and its derivatives) can never be uncommitted from that model. It imposes conditions on its users. It is the code that is free at the expense of certain user rights whereas with the BSD, it is the users that are free at the expense of the code. The benefit of GPL'd code, in terms of the community (ie: all users) is that improvements and enhancements made to it are always available to everyone. Code under the BSD can not make that claim--I see it as the tragedy of the commons for the modern age.
I don't think its a big issue in the end. The fact that there are choices means that we all get to put our efforts behind the horses that we want to win (I'm actually mostly a libertarian and I don't believe people can be legislated to behave in certain ways--only persuaded). I also suspect that available BSD licensed software will stagnate because there is no incentive for people to share back enhancements and because people who are interested in donating the fruits of their labours to the common good have better licenses for that at their disposal. No, BSD licenses won't disappear, but BSD developments will necessarily be behind those in the GPL world: we won't ever see mass donations of code to BSD like we do under the GPL. In particular, we won't likely see large corporations which are presently benefiting from BSD software releasing their enhancements, etc. Why create a level playing field, even if that is for the common good? Isn't that a shame?
So yes, BSD is panacea for anyone whose sole goal is to make a buck because it doesn't restrict their use of the code in anyway. But it doesn't protect my right to use (again, as a developer) BSD derived code since that may be closed at someone's whim. This is the type of restriction I meant to imply. I've probably done a bad job of it once again, though.
Anyways, nice talking to you! Cheers!
I think this is where the problems come in. From what I can tell (be warned: legal-speak confuses me immensely) it seems to be a necessary change because of the recent furore about software patents. It seems to be merely a restriction to prevent patent-holders from contributing their ideas to the codebase and then down the line trying to charge for use.
The problem then appears to stem from the fact that said restriction is a restriction - and is incompatible with the majority of current free/open licenses.
Or something, anyway. but basically it looks like changes which are a good idea in theory are incompatible with the letter of a lot of F/OSS licenses. And, like it or not, this means that it can cause problems unless/until the GPL/BSD/WTF licenses catch up with the changes.
I'm not so sure it's that the changes are nevessarily a "bad thing", more that the various F/OSS groups are showing that they take licensing seriously. And with the current anti-free FUD going around, showing that they will take serious steps to avoid breaking licenses can only be a positive step.
TiggsSadly, the drawback is that to Play By The Rules sometimes they have to make unpopular decisions. But the flipside is that, if necessary, they can still fork from earlier versions.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Then don't fsking use other people's code, write your own!
The essence of GPL is this:
Yes, you can use other people's work, but then you'll have to contribute some work yourself.
If you just take other people's work without giving something bakc, you're just a THIEF!
I haven't read it myself but does this force you to open your patents up to everyone for any use or simply for apache-derived open-source projects?
Essentially it boils down to the difference between making your ideas public domain and GPLing them.
I can see the logic behind either approach, but the public domain-ish one seems to be more natural; to do otherwise would be like saying "I'm going to publish this information out in the open, call it Free but reserve the right to sue your ass back to the stoneage if you actually use it (or any ideas it gives you) for your own purposes".
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
The ISC liscense is a permisive license with no strings attached and covers both patents and copyrights (because you grant permission to DO THINGS, not a grant of a limited license).
The origial Apache liscense was very similar but added some advertising and attribution restrictions that generally have little or no cost. There are numerous problems with the new license including:
I could go on, but it's not needed. While you may not have a problem with these changes, they do clearly violate the stated policy of OpenBSD. I see nothing wrong with not updating the version of Apache they use to one with the new license. They will continue to provide and support the older version and hopefully the Apache foundation will change it's mind before they are forced to find a more permanant solution.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase.
This is false. Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.
What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal. However, if it is a product the company distributes, then yes, your code will need to be GPL compatible. There is more than one way to do so, some which would not mean disclosing the source of your code.
I always get the shakes before a drop.
Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.
This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well. Now that doesn't mean you need to make it public. It just means you cannot distribute the resulting binary without offering to distribute the source code as well.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal.
Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't mean you have to make it public, but it still has to be GPL.
There is more than one way to do so, some which would not mean disclosing the source of your code.
Wow! That's a statement! Since the GPL is all about distributing the source code along with the binaries, I don't really know how you could do that. Please tell me if there is another solution.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.
For all practical purposes, this is the SAME THING!
If I am writing an application for the purposes of distributing it, then a GPL library is restricting my ability to distribute it. Even if I distribute it within embedded hardware. This is radically different from the LGPL.
your code will need to be GPL compatible.
You've got it backwards. Any code that is considered to be "derivative" by license must be released under the GPL. The "compatibility" refers to linkage/derivation in the other direction.
Since this is frequently misunderstood, let me offer an example. You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code?
No one has any problems with that. I am a huge fan of the BSD license, and *I* have no problem with that.
The problem is that the FSF considers dynamic linkage to be derivation. Thus you can "run afoul" of the GPL without embedding any GPL code into your own. You can fall under its restrictions by distribution completely original software. This is a restriction on use, not distribution, copying or modification.
Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?
I'm imagining this petty dictator somewhere saying "now do you see how restrictive western style democracy is?"
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
it is bad because it places restrictions on the software past what are imposed by the bsd license. openbsd now uses the 2-clause license, and this new license apache uses (it's the same core issue (not free enough licenses) with cisco/vrrp and xfree86) a more restrictive license
theo has made it clear, a number of times, that nothing new will get into the tree with unfree licenses. he (and the rest of openbsd) want it this way.
really, it boils down to simplicity of the license. read the 30 or so lines of the 2-clause bsd license. then read this new apache license. then read the gpl. apache has just made their license more complex and as such, made their software less sought-after
vodka, straight up, thank you!
I also suspect that available BSD licensed software will stagnate
You mean like the stagnating Apache the topic is about? The old Apache license was merely the BSD license with a trademark/advert clause.
Prepubescent Slashdot trolls like to joke about BSD dying, but the fact of the matter is that for the thirty year history of BSD licensed code, it has never once stagnated. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, all under the BSD license, are growing at a tremendous rate.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
That's true--but not nearly as fast as GPL'd code. As BSDers like to note, GPL code is viral, so it will undoubtedly grow faster as long as people find the values it ensures worthwhile for adoption.
You raise a good point though--the BSD is older than the GPL. Yet which has more code licensed under it? Which has more active developers? For all of the supposed benefits of the BSD, why is it trailing the GPL in those metrics? This is my meaning--I am not trying to bash BSD code or users and I wish that community well. My opinion, though, is that they will find themselves with an ever decreasing mindshare. Only history can say if I am wrong (or right) about that.
Cheers!
You know Brandybuck, that was an unwarrented and unkind remark. Besides, the hallmark of western democracy is "freedom for all", whereas I am maintaining that the BSD hallmark is "freedom for me". I expected more from you based on your previous comments.
Time to de-lurk, as other ACs are resorting to name calling, and don't want to be confused with them. I wasn't being so much an Anonymous Coward as a "Lazy Bum", too lazy to look up my old slashdot name and PW. :)
... can disappear while GPL derived code can not" This is not true (at least for my definition of "dissappear"). Once a work is released with a license, that license can not be revoked on that particular version of the source. The project may fork at that point, with someone taking a BSD'd project in a non-BSD direction (i.e., Apache or XFree86 or SSH), but the OLD VERSIONS remain with their old license. Believe me, if SSH.com could revoke the old v1 ssh code's BSD license, they would in a heartbeat. They took their app closed source, OpenSSH took the old BSD code and extended it (and a side note: I have no doubt that both OpenSSH and SSH.com's products are better because of the existance of the other, which means the users win).
:)
Most of our disagreement here appears to over terms and usage. I think we've made our respective meanings clear...now readers get to decide for themselves which they prefer 8).
Hopefully we can also agree with this point: there are benefits and downsides to both BSD and GPL licenses -- the choice of license should always be up to the coder. I would also think that the acceptability of each should always be left to the person using the software in question.
HOWEVER, I do want to pick on this statement of yours: "BSD derived code
Now, if by "can disapear", you mean developement can take place that is not fed back to the open source community, sure, but that's not what I would call "disappearing". XFree86, Apache and SSH didn't "disappear" from the world, just got "less free" development. If the open source community cares enough to continue "free" development of BSD licensed code, they can.
As for is sharing back modifications "really asking too much?", the idea sounds great...however, it gets messy. Making a three line change in a GPL program? Sure, easy. Incorporating a small 100 line GPL'ed routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app GPL? That doesn't seem "fair" to me. Things get ugly if you start trying to draw a line here...lawyers get involved. The BSD philosophy is "just use it. Feed back your contributions if you wish to, but you are 'free' do to as you wish in that regard". Personally, I prefer that acts of generosity be voluntary...but that's me.
Otherwise I think you are spot on. Let people decide for themselves is the best of all solutions. It is important that folks like you and I and the others that posted make their opinions known, no matter how varied: as a very great man said, what we individually do is of no significance: but it is vitally important that we do it.
"Someone can take a BSD codebase, make changes and
never release the sources--to me, that is disappearing the code, though I should think of a better way to describe it."
This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.
Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.
AC> This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.
AC> Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.
That's a bullshit counter-point. I'm specifically talking about programs that are distributed and not private sole-use creations which couldn't be controlled anyhow. (I don't care what you do in your own bedroom, you know?)
Generosity is about giving without expecting return, but greediness is about taking without giving back. I will be generous, but not to the greedy. That is my choice.
There's a lyric in a song that goes like this:
we don't mind
we've been doing it all the time
but if you want us to sacrifice
you got to give something back to life
Note that this link is for booting and loading install/upgrade program only. You can go on with a network install from it. CD's layout are copyrighted by Theo de Raadt. You can, however, download and make your own bootable CD.
Psst, you didn't read the latest memo....
Um, Netcraft confirms problems for Trolls:
June 8th 2004 Netcraft confirms FreeBSD growth to 5M hosts and 2.5M active websites
It is not the disagreements, it is that he is so often right! :)
So is the only "non-free" aspect of this that it restricts the freedom of contributors to sue over patent ownership of code that they themselves contributed?
There seems to be a paradox, because if patent holders can sue over contributed code, then the software is non-free for the user.
So with the clause, the contributor loses the freedom for preying on users legally, while without the clause, users retain the freedom to subject themselves to endless legal hassles.
This is a perversion of freedom absurd. The clause is fine and free.
One possibility is that somebody might be upset about the clause considering *countersuits* as another violation. This somebody might be big and blue.
evanchik.net
yer not my father!
The GPL encourages expansion of the GPL body of work.
The BSD licence encourages use of the code by everyone.
Framed this way, you can decide what your #1 goal is, then select that license.
It is not the disagreements, it is that he is so often right! :)
He's right about three quarters of the time, and the other 25% of the time he's a fucking asshole who can't admit he's wrong.
The only reason the GPL creates issues for compatibility is that the GPL both adds restrictions (thus, a GPL-compatible licence must permit those restrictions to be added), and prohibits you from adding further restrictions (thus, a compatible licence must not add restrictions the GPL doesn't). You can release an application built on GPL libraries under the BSD licence, so long as you are aware that it is only the application code that is BSD licensed; the combination of application code and essential libraries is GPL licensed, but your code alone does not have to be.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
Bite this, troll:
Truly free software can't exist in a market economy that treats software as property. GNU implements a free market in which software can not be bought and traded like "real" property, but it has to use the existing copyright laws to do so, otherwise anyone could change a few lines and release non-free software. Remember, software is not Free if all you get is the binary, with no right to redistribute it.
I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.
But the license terms are themselves completely political. The whole point of the GPL is for the FSF to enforce their view of how software should be distributed. The whole point of the alternatives is that not everyone agrees 100% with the FSF agenda. There's no difference between the terms and the politics behind them.
First off, you didn't say if you distribute your app, which I assume you do. If it's an inhouse tool, you don't have to distribute the code to anyone (as long as it is the same legal entity, your company, it's not distribution).
The issue with the BSD/LGPL licence is that you are more restrictive about releasing code under it because it is less restrictive. With it, people can take your work to make them profit, hell if they add enough value you may be paying to get a derivate of your own work.
The GPL is such a success because it's free enough and restrictive enough. A licence nobody is using is merely a nice curiousity. The GPL furthers the production of GPL code. The BSD code simply doesn't.
I agree though, that sometimes the GPL is unreasonable. If you need a small library/simple GUI etc. to a program where your own code is the great majority of the programming work, it is. But there's room for an interpretation like that. Taking a bunch of BSD/LGPL libraries/programs, make a proprietary program that's 99% other people's work isn't right either. The GPL errs on the right side, in my opinion.
I don't complain about Tivo or Red Hat or IBM making money of "not their" work. They provide add-on services I (or anyone) could choose to compete with. But if you take my code, make a proprietary program out of it, I've no chance to sell/service that program like you. My work has put *you* ahead. With the GPL, we're all equal. Same code, same starting point.
That puts a lot less restrictions on me when I ask this "Should I release this under an OSS licence at all?"
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
OpenBSD doesn't like the GPL, it is infact replacing all the GPL code in the base system with BSD varients (diff, gzip, awk and others).
Your comment is out of place here, Apache being GPL incompatible had nothing to do with OpenBSD rejecting it, it was that the license is OpenBSD incompatible. Free as in free.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
OpenBSD is definately more hardcore for keeping code free, that's why they don't accept the GPL, it's not free enough for them.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
Free means without restriction. Using a tactic that employs a non-free aspect to advocate freedom is hypocrisy.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
I hope you spent 4 other points on off topic mods then, because I was most certainly on topic for what was really being discussed at the time of the post.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
And what was being discussed? You were a reply to the story, therefore nothing was being discussed, you started a discussion by making a post that had no relevence to the article.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
If you meant, how do you get away with proprietary software linked to a GPL library, then the answer is simple - don't distribute binaries, ever. Let the user download and compile/link the source.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
I've always considered that a bit strange too. If a program is dynamically linked to a library, it doesn't contain any code from the library (just headers and references to the library). So why should code that is dynamically linked to GPL'd libraries fall under the GPL?
I've always wondered what would happen if someone wrote a wrapper program around a GPL'ed library which received calls down a pipe, passed them to the library, and returned the response. Then, for a slight performance overhead, you could use the library from non-GPL'ed code - and it'd be hard to ban, because the GPL code would be in a seperate program from the non-GPL code!
The Apache 1.3 series really doesn't seem to get much development besides the usual bugfixes and security patches. The only reason people use it is because of either refusal to change to Apache 2 (if it ain't broke don't fix it) or because there's still some required module that only runs on Apache 1.3. On the other hand, I really never got why theres a webserver in the base OS in OpenBSD. As some other posters mentioned, the ports is where a webserver belongs IMHO.
No, it isn't. When I have obtained some code (the dyn. library in this case) which was "licensed" to me under GPL, I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Including linking it with any application (GPL, non-GPL doesn't matter) I want. The GPL only prevents me from distributing the result of that linkage.
Actually that's false. Linking to something would not come close to being enough to prove derivitive status. Better would be something like:
You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application written so that it is worthless unless it links to a library solely licensed under the GPL under the BSD license.
I think you should avoid the foul language. As for your comments regarding licenses not applying until you distribute....
copyright law doesn't apply at all except when you make copies. All licenses act this way you aren't saying anything unusual here. New code is GPLed whether you distribute or not, its just that if you don't distribute it the GPL doesn't require you to do anything.
be impeached or forced to do something with BSD and not with GPL.
I can think of several things:
a) Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost
b) Be assured that improvements to the code are public
etc...
BSD is only more free for the first generation of users / developers then it gets less free.
The problem is that the FSF considers dynamic linkage to be derivation. Thus you can "run afoul" of the GPL without embedding any GPL code into your own.
That's not true. What they consider is that dynamic linkage should be treated no differently than static linkage. Static linkage in and of itself is not suffecient to create a derived work. For example there are open source versions of printf that have been linked into commercial programs. They are not derived works of those programs. Rather what is required is that the code is only useful if linked (like a routine designed only to work with a particular piece of code).
I've always wondered what would happen if someone wrote a wrapper program around a GPL'ed library which received calls down a pipe, passed them to the library, and returned the response. Then, for a slight performance overhead, you could use the library from non-GPL'ed code - and it'd be hard to ban, because the GPL code would be in a seperate program from the non-GPL code!
The law doesn't regulate mechanism of linkage. The wrapper program would be useless without the library and hence is a derived work of the library. So unless you could prove the wrapper was written black-box style its under the GPL...
Incorporating a small 100 line GPL'ed routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app GPL?
How is this different than, "Incorporating a small 100 line commercial routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app commercial".
BSD supporters seem to be OK with this model. A unified work pretty much takes on the restrictions of all of its parts.
Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost
So redistributing BSD code isn't free? I don;t understand your point.
Be assured that improvements to the code are public
Well, that's not an impeachment for you. You are not coerced into anything here, you are not impeached or forced to do something.
My point was: As a human being, if you use/distribute/write/etc code with BSD license, you have TWO restrictions:
1. You HAVE TO leave the copyright notice where it is
2. You CANNOT declare yourself the author of that code.
While you have these with GPL, you have a lot more. Hence the idea that BSD is less restrictive than GPL. More restrictions.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
That's true. That's why the commerical stuff isn't allowed into OpenBSD.
If a company somewhere out there wants to maintain their own fork of a previously BSDL program, they can. But that has no impact at all on the BSDL version, which remains as free as it ever was.
Microsoft uses BSDL code in the NT network stack (strong evidence from observing the behaviour), but that hasn't had any impact on the BSDs. Their network stacks are unchanged. Microsoft Services for UNIX uses OpenBSD code for a lot of the userspace stuff-- confirmed from OpenBSD copyright notices in the binaries. But OpenBSD hasn't been impacted at all.
They're commercial forks, but the original isn't affected. Microsoft doesn't have to contribute changes back, but that is the primary goal of the BSD license, not some unforseen side effect.
Also... remembe that there was a big lawsuit over this very issue. USL sued Berkley and USL got their asses handed to them. The BSD license came through its day in court long before anyone had heard of SCO.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
And my point was that you were drawing a conclusion not warrented. You created one scenerio: a first generation user gets a unified work which is exclusively licensed under the BSD license and wants to do something prohibited by the GPL.
Under all those conditions:
a) First generation
b) exlusively BSD components
c) Wants to transform licenses
he has more freedom than the GPL.
That's far short of proving that the license is more free in general. Changes to either (a) or (b) make the GPL more free.
Please, change (a) or (b) and tell me how the person you are considering is more free with the GPL. Please, do.
You question my example, but so far I've been the only one to provide one. A little easy, if you want my inner feeling.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
OK
a) Someone who is using SGIs, HO, Suns... X server (first gen code was MIT~BSD license). They have no freedom with it at all.
b) Someone using Windows NT
Well, interesting.
Point A doesn't use BSD code, I fail to see how this is relevant. They can use first gen code and have full liberty with it, it's BSD. Or they can use gen 1234 of it which is not BSD and they have no liberty. So your first point proves that:
1. Using proprietary code is more restrictive than using BSD code. We knew that.
2. BSD code can be merged with proprietary code, without having that merged code being BSD. This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty: You can add YOUR stuff to it without making it public. Note that the original code is still BSD and free for all. People using that code (and only the BSD portion of it) are free as a bird.
Point b is quite obscure to me. How is Windows NT relevant here?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
There were many posts about the GPL under that article. That constitutes a discussion, regardless of whether I responded directly to one or to the article. I assumed since you took the time to reply that you had moderated the post. Either way, if you want to get technical, your responses are as off topic as anything could be, since they only relate to a post you already branded off topic.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
Indeed, I thought you may mean that in a later moment of clarity, however, one cannot moderate and post on the same article.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
NT is a well known product which contains BSD subroutines that have been modified and improved inside a work which is primarily not BSD (unlike the case of the X server where the work was evolutionary ).
Anyway I think you should reread the thread. The point was examples where you had more freedom under GPL. If you are admitting you have more freedom you are conceeding the main point.
The code that was used in Windows NT is still free and in use in many other OSes. Some free, some not.
It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument.
My post: This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty
Your answer: If you are admitting you have more freedom [under GPL] you are conceeding the main point.
I give it up right there.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
You are just like the person who says, "You can free your slaves whenever you want, but we must not outlaw slavery. Because that restricts people's freedom - their freedom to sell themselves back into slavery whenever they choose to do so."
Freedom to sell yourself into slavery is not "true freedom". But it is possible to dress it up as freedom.
And the BSD license which allows someone to release BSD code under a closed license isn't true freedom either - for exactly the same reason.
Handing out code without caring about its future is not freedom, it is neglect. There is a difference.
I am anarch of all I survey.
That's a good point.
"A man talking sense to himself is no madder than a man talking nonsense not to himself."
I will soon be back. Teabaggers. !FP.
GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not.
But of course it can. Or cannot, depending on your POV.
If I derive code from GPL code, and don't release it to anyone, then delete it, it has disappeared, right? (AFAIK, GPL is about distribution, so what you do with GPL software in privacy is nobody's business.)
You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is.
I think this is an important point, you just made me realise why I prefer the BSD license. Stallman talks about "free software, free as in freedom, not beer" all the time. But I just came to the conclusion that this is nonsense: software is not sentient, does not possess a free will; software like all other IP is nothing but an expression of thoughts by someone, thoughts which themselves may be reflections and compositions of thoughts from others; it is pure form embodied in some physical matter.
Freedom is a property, indeed a fundamental right, of humans. Sometimes people are deprived of that right by others, either for good or bad reasons; but it remains their right nonetheless. What would it mean to liberate a beer? Pour it in the sink? "Dear Ale, you are now free to roam at your own will." How can beer or software be free, except as in "at no cost"? How can software be in possession of anything, not to say freedom?
Sometimes the phrase "Free speech" is also used. That is another nonsense phrase: it really should be "(somebody's) freedom to speak" - free speech is when I go to hear a speech, and I don't have to pay, freedom to speak is something entirely different. (I think this may be because, while verbing nouns is fairly safe, nouning verbs isn't.)
So BSD is about a meaningful and important concept: user's freedom, whereas GPL is about a nonsense concept: software's freedom.
-Lasse
(I hope this made sufficient sense. Although I regard my self as fairly good at English, it *is* a foreign language to me.)
Certainly, as individuals we have many freedoms that we would not want curtailed, yet there are many individual freedoms, that for the good of all, we do want curtailed. For example, as a society of individuals we do not tolerate one individual taking the life of another since that necessarily impinges on the rights of the other. I see the BSD as falling into that same millieu.
By granting any individual unlimited rights, other individuals unnecessarily have their rights limited. This is why the GPL is often said to have the "right" balance. It allows for equal rights for all which, in my mind, is far better than unlimited rights for all--because that is, in an impossible fantasy.
Best regards! (and by-the-way, your english was excellent. My posts are probably more confusing and I'm a native english speaker)
You may feel that there is nothing wrong with Microsoft (or anyone) using that BSD code and not sharing back their modifications (their "competitive edge") but that is in no way an argument for freedom. Most people (particularly free lunchers) forget that with freedom, obligation comes necessarily (as Sarte). Allowing one person to make a monopoly of their work based on the work of someone else is not freedom at all, at least, not by the standards that would apply to a collective of individuals.
This is really the crux: Unless you live in a vaccuum by your own lone self, your freedoms are necessarily restricted by mine, and vice-versa. This is an undeniable fact of community. Ignoring this is the tantamount error of the BSD and the recognition of this fact is the grace of the GPL. The issue that folks like I have with the BSD is that it allows someone to drink from the common pool until they are sated and then turn around and piss in it.
BTW, when collectives of free peoples do grant unlimited power to individuals, they tend to regret it later as it leads (inevitably) to despostism. If people could be trusted to do the right thing in all situations (ie. share back modifications, even though it is not required) then we wouldn't have any civil laws, would we? We can dance around the issues forever by saying things like "BSD allows me more rights, so it is more free" but in the end, I am forced to consider that a rather short-sighted view.
This is false. Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.
Obviously, I can't simply rename GNU software, remove the license and sell it. I also cannot legally print the source into a big stack of paper and bash Bill through the windows with it.
So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app ..
He didn't say it was internal use only. Also, in a business context, can you really make sure that it stays internal ? What if the company gets bought ? What if it splits up into small companies ? What if your app is so great you want to sell it ?
What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.
I read this up under the GNU website yesterday, and they commented that you can't distribute the program either without offering the same rights.
And the original comment isn't fitting in all situations either:Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. .
Well, if it is a "lib", then it is possible that the lib is available under the LGPL, and in this case your codebase stays yours and unburdened.
Now to add something myself, it it somewhat annoying that it is usually the GPL that gets used not the LGPL or the GNU Artistic License.
For example, if I have a snippet of code that is under GPL, and I don't change it and it is clearly separated and encapsulated in one file, then if I make a program that calls that code then I am supposed to make not only that code but the entire program available under the GPL.
Clearly that does not make that much sense; consider for example if I spend some more brains and effort I could place the GPL code snippet in a separate program, and call the code by the venerable systems exec command, and in this case I only have to make the wrapper I made for the GPLed code under the GPL.
This may be cool from a theoretic point of view, "free software", but it is difficult in practice.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
And on today's news (doesn't this sound familiar????)....
[22 June 2004]
The Apache Software Foundation core team has voted to disband itself, effective 01 July 2004 in what is basically a minor internal restructuring, similiar in both spirit and action to last January when the devel list was opened up to the whole Apache HTTPD community instead of as previously just Apache HTTPD developers.
This dissolution made allot of sense as the core team was supposed to be distillation of the best and brightest that Apache HTTPD development had to offer. In reality, this vibrancy required constant checking, pruning and monitoring and as Apache HTTPD is a volunteer organisation of all this extra burden was taking away precious development time to perform worthless bureaucratic tasks.
Happily, the vast majority of core team members saw that the important architectural discussions were happening out there on the devel list and not behind closed doors on core, and so with a gift for the obvious, they voted to disband.
It is possible though, that Task Forces, ad hoc committees, will be setup in the future to fulfill certain goals, issues and technical problems that inevitably spring forth. There is precedent for such Task Forces in Apache HTTPD, as during the years of 1997-1999 there was one called a Design Team that was made up of many non-core technical personnel to create the all-important 2.0 modular architecture.
In the meantime, The Apache HTTPD Project and its still very active and cutting-edge developers are doing what they do best: developing, discussing and hanging out on the development list all for the purpose of fielding questions and getting ready for our 1.4 Release. While you are in the area, why don't you join them?
Comments, concerns, sighs and cheers about the dissolution can be made on Forum at Apache dot org; registration is not necessary. Hope to see you there.