Slashdot Mirror
Businessweek Recommends License Switch for Linux
MadFarmAnimalz writes "BusinessWeek has an article about the perceived threat of patents to linux, citing the SCO case, the opening of OSRM, and the Munich situation as evidence for the veracity of their conclusion that Linux isn't safe. Their solution? Relicense to the BSD license or the Mozilla license. On a positive note, the article's author does link to RMS' article Why Software Should Not Have Owners; good to see Stallman being quoted and linked to in a publication Like BusinessWeek."
I can't see how switching licenses will help.
The licenses mentioned (patent clauses in GPL acknoweldged) deal with copyright and not patents which although people easily confuse are completely different legal areas.
Women should give up their personal rights to make it easier on people who want to rape them.
if this were to happen, which I find highly unlikely, for one thing there would be a fork straight away. It would be just like the Xorg and Xfree split. Also, under the bsd license commercial proprietary software can integrate the open-source work, so why would anyone slave away at developing linux, only to have their work immediately integrated into commercial applications, the original developers not to see a dime. There is all kinds of bsd code in windows, for example.
I have written code for Linux and I decided to put it under the GPL. Get over it. I won't change it. I feel that the GPL gives me the kind of protection I want to have. BSD license would mean that scum like SCO can abuse my code. I am sure they would love that but it won't happen. So you stupid reporters and lawyers can as well stop argueing about license switches BECAUSE IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Go away.
That's an article? People who want money for nothing demand a gift with no string attached? Their message to the authors of Linux: "All your software are belong to us!"
The issue with patents is that certain basic ways of accomplishing tasks can be restricted.
Changing licenses won't prevent the use of litigation to suppress open source tools which do the same things as commercial products.
Stop the world; I need to get off.
It's a commentary, AKA an opinion piece. Look, I can write an opinion piece, too.
Microsoft should switch to the GPL.
Hey, someone submit this to Slashdot. Here's an idea for the text. "Slashdot has an article suggesting Microsoft should switch to the GPL."
Are there any practical reasons they can't use FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD instead of Linux in situations where a BSD-style license is preferred over GPL?
Or is it simply because they've never heard of it due to lack of marketing?
Even if this were a good idea (which it's not - it's roughly on a par with somebody who is being attacked by rabid hyenas deciding that they'd be safer if they distracted the hyenas by attaching large chunks of fresh meat all over their body), it would require that either:
a) Anybody with significant (as in more than 20-30 lines or so) contributions to the kernel give their approval for the switch, and it ain't gonna happen because even if Linus went for it, Alan Cox is very much pro-GPL and has large chunks of code all over the kernel
or:
b) Somebody strip out or rewrite all parts of the kernel copyrighted by people who objected to the license change, which in the end would probably amount to an effective rewrite of the whole thing.
Of course, then the BSD licensed stuff would be copied back into the GPL'd fork, as is allowed.
Result - A full-featured GPL'd version, and a non-GPL'd version without all the features that it can't include as it would be a violation of the GPL.
In other words, why bother? It ain't broke - don't try to "fix" it.
repeat after me: I belive in GPL.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
The logistics of a license switch are staggering, especially when you consider a project the size of the Linux kernel. IANAL, but wouldn't every contributor to a given project, no matter how far back as long as their code's still there, have to sign off and approve of the license change?
Sounds like a headache and a half to me.
This guy knows nothing of what he speaks. The open group owns the Unix trademark. SCO claims to own the source and rights, but thats disputed by Novell the previous owner.
you can't put the fucking cat back in the bag. Its dumb to think that you can just "turn linux into BSD" etc. On a side note, as much as i would like to see linux being ran by massive companies, I don't really give a fuck. What Walmart runs in their datacenter really doesn't concern me. If everything in the US courts went against GPL etc, and it was illegal to use linux in the USA. They would used it everwhere else. Futher putting the USA in the eyes of the other industiralised nations in the catagory of a despotic regime.
Funny, why would any personal user give a sheist about the license?
This being about corporate interests then, and me being a private entity, why should I give a sheisty sheist what SCO thinks of themselves?
What's important to note is the overall quality of life for the citizens of the United States - our best interests are to not penalize *nix users at all - it's too late in the game and many a small business would go out of business because of the cost associated with compliance or monetary settlement.
Not that government has ANY idea on how to secure their own machines, or tax internet sales, or stop Bill Gates and his remora-ware oompaloompasfrom making a mint on anti-virus and spam software.
Silly bastards.
Stuff that matters.
We're being asked to change licenses when the GPL has NEVER BEEN STRUCK DOWN IN COURT???? OK... this seems like a troll to me.
Oh, and it's a dupe... but that's cool because I didn't get a chance to read the article last time... this time I did.
Seriously... it's sort of putting the cart before the horse. The only real problem I perceive with Linux today is that it's a large target. The GPL is not the problem, from the perspective of monolithic software corporations the whole product is the problem. Most big businesses would love to find a hole in the GPL that they could use to usurp Linux for their own ends. So far there hasn't been one.
However, I do think it might be prudent to review the GPL in really great depth (something that is sort of going on over at Groklaw) to make sure there ARE no loopholes. I want Linux to remain free.
Oh, and in answer to anyone who might ask... I use Linux not because it's free... not because I'm a geek... I use Linux because it WORKS. There's nothing that an MS operating system does better that I care about. No, I don't play games (don't have time).
With no single owner, the closest thing it (Linux) has to a central authority is the Open Source Development Lab
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Groklaw had an article about this some days ago, there are tons of discussion there why a license change;
1. Would be stupid.
2. Won't happen.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
BSD refuses to die. Free, Net, and Open have their supporters and developers.
in light of IBM's use of the GPL to shutdown a major copyright infringer, SCO...
and in light that this author decided to publish an outdated article - he continues to talk about how IBM is being sued for copyright infringement, while the hunter is now the hunted in the SCO vs IBM case with IBM arguing (very well) for partial summary judgement that IBM is 100% in the clear on Linux while its SCO who is now clearly in violation of copyright law...
but mostly because his very first premise is utterly false - "How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?"..
this article is lame...
Dear Mr. Wildstrom.
The GPL has NOTHING to do with your precious IP or ownership of software. The GPL is ONLY about two simple things - distribution and use. Just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER software license.
It is obvious you do not understand this. I suggest you read the two latest court documents from IBM, who are doing two things you claim the GPL does not allow...
1. claiming ownership of their GPL licensed software and
2. are asking the courts to prevent a copyright infringer from reditributing their software without their permission.
The easiest way to understand how the GPL works and why it works is to read those court documents - because its heart is exactly what the GPL is about - controlled distribution of owned software by the copyright holder.
As my history teacher was fond of saying to the kids that wrote their papers the night before as they watched The A-Team - "please grasp the concept, then rewrite your paper".
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Switching licenses would probably be the most painful thing to organise.
Firstly, everyone who has contributed code to the kernel would have to give permission for the license to be changed, or have to re-submit their code.
No, it is nowhere near as easy as saying "lets change the license".
Secondly, the Linux kernel has got some pretty darn cool code it in now. The GPL ensures that companies cannot take that code and do anything they like with it without releasing their modifications, eg Microsoft + BSD Networking code.
I stopped reading when I saw "Linux, the most important piece of free, open-source software". Sendmail? BIND? Apache? I wish we could mod the articles (-1, Redundant). This isn't anything we havn't seen before, just dumbed down for the masses of BusinessWeek readers. Why is crap like this on sla.. oh..
I didn't see it last week. I'm glad it came through again. Besides, it gives us the opportunity to generate karma by reposting comments from the last story. :)
I'm not sure I understand the "advantages" the writer is laying out. A BSD'ed Linux would be cut off from a lot of the improvements that come back whenever someone modifies it to suit their own needs. Doing so would also lead to an immediate fork, wherein improvements could not be exchanged between the two branches. Finally, knowing that your work can be tied up into some black box, proprietary product will be a problem to a lot of the people working on Linux right now.
All this to avoid the patent situation? 60 of the 283 patents are owned by IBM, which has said that it won't enforce them (although I would prefer to see them grant a non-revokable, free license to use each in the Linux operating system). I would guess that 90% of those which remain are owned by companies that have entered into cross-licensing agreements with IBM, so starting a patent war would be a very drastic measure for them. Those which remain, hopefully, can be worked around.
The worst case scenario is one involving some company that has a patent portfolio, a demon lawyer horde, and enough money to keep litigation going for a long while. Think SCO II. But Linux survived that with little ill effect.
I think Linux is in a pretty good position, and I don't believe the patent situation doesn't justify the sort of remedies the author suggests.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Second, the author advocates a "more commerce-friendly license" for Linux. However, he fails to give any reasons why the creators and contributors to Linux want to make it more "business friendly". Persumably, all the Linux contributors know they are releasing their code under the GPL and want to release it under the GPL. They are also free to contribute to *BSD if they like the BSD license better.
Third, the author cites Apple as an example of a company that chose FreeBSD over Linux because of the "commerce-friendly license". However, he completely ignores the fact that Linux has a much bigger mind and market share in business than *BSD, despite the "business unfriendly" GPL, and despite the fact that *BSD proponents constantly harp about the technical inferiority of Linux.
The GPL is actually very clear - derivative works of a GPL licensed work must also be GPL, otherwise you have no license to redistribute. It hasn't gone to court because if you claim the GPL is invalid, and redistribute something, then you are guilty of copyright infringement.
"Some people argue that the GPL as a whole isn't even enforceable.... "
Thats correct, it isn't, since the GPL only grants you rights. How can you enforce a license has no restrictions but only grants users redistribution rights that they otherwise wouldn't have?! Copyright law, however, is enforceable.
Write your own operating system.
License it however you like it.
Otherwise, piss off.
Thanks!
Signed,
The Linux Community.
Relicensing to the BSD license would pretty much defeat the point of GNU/Linux. I definitely think Linus needs to do more to make sure the code he commits isn't proprietary, but switching licenses?
The logical complications of changing the license to BSD would be a nightmare. Individual committers could file suit against FSF, or whoever might "own" the newly licensed code, to get a court order for their code to be removed if it's not licensed under the GPL.
Of course, somebody else could just fork Linux under the GPL again.
"And the freeddom to use the code in closed commercial applications makes it *even more free* than restricting it to only other open source projets."
So why don't they release their closed source applications under the BSD license? Or is this some kind of lopsided freedom you're arguing for?
This guy is either clueless, misled, or actively trying to mislead people.
The BSD license woud not have helped in the whole SCO fiasco. The only thing the BSD license really does is disclaiming of any liabilities of the software writer (license giver) -- so users and integrators (licensees) are still at risk of getting the crap sued out of them.
Jürgen Strobel
I don't understand how switching to another license (BSD, Mozilla, etc.) would protect the kernel from patent infringement suits.
I do see how it would make it more "commercial" friendly, but IMO, that's all it would do. If it were licensed under BSD, then companies such as MS, Apple, etc. could take the kernel, use it, change it or whatever w/o showing the changes... just like Apple has done with much of the FreeBSD code.
How dare we rob corporate America of the right to embrace and extend code with a silly license?
If you don't own the copyright of the code, you don't have the right to redistribute it, or re-license, regardless if you do it under GPL or BSD or XYZ.
You still have to pull the code, and you are still open to be sued for its use.
The key point is its NOT YOURS...
( we are talking where the original copyrights forbid redistribution, if its copyrighted under some 'free' license already, then of course this doesn't apply )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Crikey.
Look, I prefer the BSD license myself, and I'm also concerned about the potential it has for unintended contamination of aggregated works, but this is not new news and it's not related to the license, and for the most part the potential problems in the GPL don't seem to be evntuating.
It's obvious that they're using the recent patent issues... which are entirely unrelated to the license the software is distributed under... to spread uncertainty about the GPL. Licensing the software under the BSD license or the MPL or the APL or the Artistic License or even something new like a variant of the Creative Commons license wouldn't make any difference if someone filed suit over a patent.
Copyrights and patents are two different things.
If Linux is still not sold as commercial software, patents should not be an issue. Copyrights affect free and commercial software; however, patents only affect commercial software. Some business-people must have got their confusion when businesses like Red Hat, Debian, Yellow Dog, and more started to package Linux with commercial software and distributed it; it looked like commercial software. The GPL avoids patent issues, but that confusion makes it an issue. Some businesses want to find excuses that makes it an issue that their patents are valid in non-commercial software.
Two words for you on this whole patent train of contention.. Prior Art. One of the subtleties of computer history that most business/businessweek people of the "I'll get paid for idemnification insurance" crowd fail to recognize, is that patents on software didn't start coming into vogue with the big corporations until the late 90's. Most of the intrinsics in the open source world, within linux, have been around longer than that. Let's take for example the sudo example from a few days ago. Though Microsoft's patent wasn't exactly the same, the patent would never be able to pass the prior art test. There were too many examples in the open source world that existed prior. Fortunately, there are a few big companies that get it and will help to protect the open source world using the built in protections within the law. The benefits to the many far outweigh the profits of the selfish. It's too bad there isn't an IBM/Novell/Redhat there to protect those poor souls being trampled by the RIAA.
Maybe BusinessWeek should ditch neo-capitalism in favor of cwntral planning by feudal overlords.
C|N>K
Business week, thats a great source of information
-Joey
mod parent up
:0 64859996
besides, this has already been discussed at Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040814
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
From the article:
How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?
Shouldn't that be:
how can copyrights and patents survive in a world where software is owned by everyone and by no one?
Here's a clue for Businessweek and the rest of that crowd: Most OSS developers started their projects to be free from the advice and oversight of the business community. You're barking up the wrong tree.
OSS developers are professionals, they're business people themselves quite often. They're very good at what they do and have thought through the licensing issues a long time ago. You can't tell them what to do and it's never been about market share.
If you don't like the GPL, then don't use it. It's your loss. I think about a 100 companies chipping in to make improvements to OpenOffice. They get back a product that saves them thousands, maybe even millions in license fees. I'd call that a pretty good investment. Yes, other companies and people that didn't pay will get those improvements and savings as well. Too bad. You still saved millions, it's still a good deal and economically more efficient. Thousands of companies all paying for the same software that does the same thing is economic insanity.
Invest in sanity, invest in OSS.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The BSD license allows you to use the code without ever having to give back. Exactly the way business uses it.
The only thing you need to know about BSD is that Microsoft favours it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If a patent bothers some GPL types, why don't they invent a better way to get the job done, patent it, and move along?
That would seem a positive approach, as opposed to the existing compulsion to posture as victims of the patent system. If someone's motivation is to become a victim, they aren't likely to create useful software.
On the other hand, if the real objective is political -- abolish patents -- then come clean. Not that there's a Fat Chance of patents going away. People own what they invent or create. The only place that isn't true is in some sort of airhead communal fantasy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Well, as long as the people that don't hold the copyrights are suggesting that those who do change their licenses, I think Slashdot should suggest that Microsoft switch the license for Office to (GPL or) BSD.
The writter suggests using less restrictive licenses such as the BSD license or the MPL license instead of the GPL. But when I glanced over the MPL, it seems to require pretty much the same things as the GPL (derivative works are under same license, source code with the distribution). Is there a significant difference between the GPL and the MPL?
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
BusinessWeek's readers are businesspeople.
Business is about making money.
There are two ways to make money.
1. Visionaries and geniuses can create buzzwords.
2. Everyone else can jump on the buzzwords as soon as they realize that the buzzwords are buzzwords.
BusinessWeek caters to the second group because it's a market several orders of magnitude larger.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
Linux is a buzzword. *BSD is not.
This means that all the buzzword people jumped on Linux.
This guarantees that in the future, Linux will have more buzzwords than BSD.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
The next important rule with buzzwords is that you have to take a convoluted path to get to your buzzwords.
This is the rule that explains why we have a group of people working hard at developing Linux for the Macintosh as well as a group of people working hard at developing Darwin for the PC.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
buzzwords. buzzwords. buzzwords.
(** note: The author realizes that there are indeed practical reasons to make many of the decisions mentioned above. In fact, he has jumped on a couple of the bandwagons mentioned above, both for practical reasons and because of buzzword bandwagoning. The problem is systemic, has been around for thousands of years, and can only be solved by the GPL.)
A central point in the article's thesis comes from material written by Open Source Risk Management. That firm is claiming that Linux may violates 283 patents. Which is well and good for OSRM, as they stand to gain by scaring people into purchasing their patent indemnity insurance. Not to be specious, but this reminds me of those firms that sell mold insurance to homeowners while at the same time publishing articles talking about the need for mold insurance. So, OSRM scares the heck out of companies through FUD - possibly some legitimate FUD, though - regarding Linux patents and makes money off of it. Great.
The patent issue - as discussed numerous times on Slashdot - seems to be spinning out of control. Of those 283 potentially disputed patent violations, how many of those violations were constructed in the last few years by firms who exist solely to make money off of exploiting the patent system? How many of the patents have been granted by an incompetent US Patent Office that can barely recognize the concept of prior art? So, we make a gigantic switch in the Linux license to make up for yet another abuse of the patent system.
The US technology industry was helped greatly by a strong patent system, but now its rapidly getting out of control. The point of patents was, according to the Founding Fathers, primarily to encourage the development of new technology and information. Now its been turned into hucksterism that reminds me greatly of the Great Domain Name Gold Rush, where legal loopholes become more valuable than creating much of anything.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
When I passed a newsstand yesterday, I noticed that Businessweek magazine charges money for their magazine. After thorough research (well, some introspection), I've come to the conclusion that Businessweek can significantly expand its market by giving away their magazine for free.
I will come to collect my consultancy fee next week.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mr. Wildstrom argues that patents are being violated and that OSRM has found 283 patent violations. A non biased person might then ask the question "How many other operating systems or patent violations are going on in closed source code? Can one even find out?" The answer to that question is that no one knows. Inevitably, your legal risk is the same if not greater. It's highly likely that a large majority of closed source vendors are also violating patents. Which would lead a non-biased person to believe that the problem is patents not Linux or Open-Source. Considering this OSRM and "insurance" is useless. If OSRM wasn't just a money grab and actually wanted to benefit Open Source considering there is the same risk involved they'd rename themselves Patent Risk Management.
Secondly, the author argues in favor for the BSD or the MPL licenses as it would clear up ambiguities and be less restrictive. Obviously, he doesn't say how. If he did then the statement would make no sense. Again a non-biased person would question how exactly they would benefit from switching their software to those licenses. The truth of the matter that the author neglects to mention is that it doesn't. It does benefit business that would like to use the code for free. The aspect/goal being to not submit any changes to the benefit of the community that provided said company with the code in the first place. Seeing as this is Business Week I concede to that view point.
The article in and of itself is a horrible piece of advice for business especially the nimble startups. I love Linux and Open-Source but I love money more. This article advice would do nothing to further your business or protect you at all. Even after all of this I'm not biased. If Microsoft could provide what open-source did even at a small fee I would pay. This isn't the case and for small to medium companies it just doesn't make sense. Also, if I was a software shop and could use some open-source to further my business for more money I would.
I could play into that whole "I'll sue you because you're violating my patent" but then I would of probably paid SCO a $699 license fee and or bought Microsoft software. Still, my risk is the same. So if this is about Business; then Business Week and the author of the article have done a poor job in telling me how exactly to save or make money. There are too many cases of people/companies profiting off of free software than not. Simply, someone who is non-biased and comes across this article has been disserviced.
If someone starts a magazine company that provided useful Business information with NO bias I'll subscribe.
Ok, I'm so sick and tired of everyone jumping on the GPL. Please, remember that the GPL licence wasn't created for large companies to squeeze into, bump elbows, and then try and change it... no. It was created so that people could use software freely and change the source code freely and share software freely.
If a company or person does not the GPL, DON'T USE IT! Plain and simple. The GPL was first, not the OSS business model.
Bye!
SeqBox
Informative?
Insightful, yes, informative, certainly not...
This guy is making the argument that if software can be owned as in the case of the BSD license then, well, its easier to sue and "integrate" into the business world. Remember to a person who only has a hammer everything in the world is a nail.
Well I used to be a Business week subscriber and quit because of idiocy like this. The guy who wrote the column often thinks of REALLY dumb things. You just shake your head and wonder why he is even writing a column.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
In order to overcome the great problems of piracy, patents and declining readers-numbers, I have very good advice for business week:
You should publish all your documents in the public domain.
That way everyone can benefit from the articles you have painstakingly written!
I don't think the reporter's poor investigation has much to do with this piece. I'm not saying the "research" was any good--Bruce is probably right about the ignorance of Businessweek. But the knowledge part is kinda irrelevant.
Instead, Businessweek, being what they are, is in the business of fantasizing about free giveaways to large companies. Sort of the Enron model of capitalism. What could Businessweek readers like more than a massive donation of free programming efforts into the private coffers of big business? Well, I suppose they like massive corporate welfare even more (the Haliburton model); but they'd certainly be happy to accept the free money of "privatized" Free Software.
The patent issue is OF COURSE completely irrelevant here. Or maybe BSD-licensed software would be slightly more vulnerable to patent suits. But the difference is small, in any case. The main patent danger is big companies spending a lot more on lawyers than Free Software developers possibly can--and quite independent of the "merits" of patent claims, getting injunctions against Free Software.
Buy Text Processing in Python
BusinessWeek has an article about the perceived threat of patents to Microsoft, citing the SCO case, the opening of OSRM, and the Munich situation as evidence for the veracity of their conclusion that Windows isn't safe. Their solution? Relicense to the BSD license or the Mozilla license. On a positive note, the article's author does link to RMS' article Why Software Should Not Have Owners; good to see Stallman being quoted and linked to in a publication Like BusinessWeek.
#include <sig.h>
Since in the standard preamble of the GPL (as found in Linux) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, the following is stated:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, OR (at your option) ANY LATER VERSION"
Couldn't the license switch be done by simply having a new version of the GPL?
I am not saying it is a good idea, but I'm curious if this is possible?
This article stems from a flawed assumption, namely, that the Linux development team really cares whether businesses switch to Linux or not. Linux was written by people who wanted "software that doesn't suck," not people who thought "Hey, let's write a bunch of neat-o code and put it out there and maybe a bunch of businesses will be interested."
In fact the article has it 100% backwards. Rather than Linux switching licenses to appeal more to the business crowd (which of course ain't gonna happen), business should start thinking of software in terms of software as a service -- not a web service, but a service like electricity or plumbing. Once that happens and businesscritters start realizing that you can use Linux in your enterprise without scaring off your employees or having to release all your internal software into the public domain, the arguments over lower TCO will start to take hold.
Someone you trust is one of us.
The key point is its NOT YOURS...
I'm sorry, your native language must not be English. Allow me to help you gain some insight into our wonderful language. The word you are looking for is it's. Have a good day.
The differences between various *BSD systems are, actually, less than between various Linux distros. Some are closer, some further away from the others in look and in feel. Pick one you like.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
...probably lame, but I'll ask them anyway. If the copyright is somehow wrong, and it allegedly has all these patent infringements, where's the lawsuits besides from SCO? It's not like it's any big secret. IBM has stated they don't intend to sue, I don't know what if anything Microsoft has said, but seeing as how this alleged infringement is widely known now, and there's no lawsuits, how could any company in the future claim "golly gee, lookee there, they are infringing on our patent?" Is it legal to sue well after the fact of finding out about it?
I don't know the nuances here, I admit.
And I have another question, are entire operating systems patentable? Seems like they would be, given that individual snippets of code seem to be patentable, so maybe there's no "lines of code required" size limit.. Are any operating systems patented in their totality?
If you look at what is currently licensed under the BSD license, and how long many of those projects have been in existence, I think you will find it wont make much of a difference.
People will still code, and donate it to the community, as they have been.
Few people in the *nix world are hung up on if their code can be used for commercial purposes ( without 'giving back' ) or not...And the few that are, wont be missed. ( and they can choose another license if they want anyway.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sorry about the yelling in the title, but anyone who suggests relicensing the Linux kernel is forgetting that the kernel is not written by one person. It's written by thousands of people, each of whom would have to relicense their code under BSD. Some of those people are dead. Some of them are unknown. Some of them would refuse to relicense. Some of them release under licenses which are not GPL but which state that they can be relicensed under GPL. The Linux kernel code may be technically a unified whole (to some extent or other), but LEGALLY, it is a collection of numerous pieces which all must be considered separately.
I think the BSD license if just fine. That isn't the issue. The issue is that in order to relicense the kernel under BSD, so much code which could not be relicensed would have to be ripped out that you would not have a kernel left.
So, while I can't say whether or not, generally speaking, the suggestion to switch licenses is an unwise one, I can definately say that it's a totally ignorant suggestion. Saying "relicense linux" is like saying "delete linux".
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I'm clearly just another voice in the chorus here, but this is clearly something that Business Week is incapable of grasping --there is no particular advantage to Open Source in being commerce friendly.
Closed Source is commerce friendly and they already have it and are free to stick with it. Nobody said businesses have to use Open Source. Open Source is not commerce friendly and doesn't need to be.
In fact, the situation is quite the opposite, it's the business community that is coming begging for handouts, not the other way around. They're the ones that need to make changes and pronto. Businesses need to make themselves Open Source friendly and their competitors will be the ones that force them to become so. Nobody involved in Open Source has to, should or ought to do anything to appease the business community beyond taking their money to write GPL code they're going to subsidize to demonstrate their good graces. The onus is on them and if they value it, we want to see cash up front. If they don't want Open Source code, then they can sink while their competitors crush them.
"Since the conclusion of the 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' our lawyers have concluded that all potential variations on super-peril have been written and are owned by AOL Time Warner. Variations which ABC, Fantagraphics, and Marvel continue to publish are simple rehashes of these plot lines."
"Because of court rulings such as the decision that all Fawcett superheroes (Captain Marvel, the wizard Shazam, Mr. Tawky Tawny, etc.) were rip-offs of Superman Intellectual Property rights, this sets a dangerous precedent in comic book publishing."
"BusinessWeek advises that all future comics not owned by AOL Time Warner should include a license that allows other publishers free use of your work, as is or with modifications, with only a notice in the fine print and without compensation."
It's a pretty badly written article, which, they way I read it, merely juxtaposes two things: (a) the patent issues with free software in general, (b) the anti-corporate culture behind the GPL. The BSD license is offered as an alternative in the second regard, not the first.
The problem with the article, again, is that it's badly written, and in such a way that if you assume it is a single, unified argument from start to end, you end up concluding that the guy claimed something he didn't.
Are you adequate?
When I buy content on a medium (cassette tape, CD, DVD), part of what I am buying, have been buying for dozens of years, and will continue buying is the ability to make a copy of said material. A portion of the purchase price which I paid for the material goes for the ability to copy it, which I am expecting.
I actually benefit the economy further by my expectation - I buy other media (CDs, DVDs) onto which to copy the first disk. I buy hardware (VCRs, computers, etc) as a tool to use to perform the copying which I am expecting to do when I buy the disk. etc etc
If my purchase was only to constitute a license or a lease, and I couldn't freely make copies, then I would no longer be interested in the content. The content cannot ever be divorced, for me or for most buyers, from its copy-ability. So when you say, "If I write some software, it *is* morally wrong for someone to copy it," sorry, but you are completely wrong. If you wrote it with no intention of ever distributing it to anyone else, and if I broke into your house and stole it, okay, sure. But if you distribute it, and I choose to buy it, one of the reasons for which I am buying it is the ability to make copies of it. It is the essence of our bargain, our contract, that you and I will have entered into. If I can't copy it, then the content is junk to me. The only reason I am spending money for it in the first place is BECAUSE I CAN COPY IT.
For you to try to get me to spend money for it, and then take away not only my money, but try to take away the utility, the copy-ability, that forms the essence of why I paid for it in the first place, is the thing which is morally bankrupt. Any copyright holder which attempts that kind of hijacking, who takes my money and also tries to take away my full enjoyment of the product, is committing theft.
Got it?
The problem I have with the BSD licence is that -- in the three- and four-clause forms at least -- it does not guarantee source code availability for all time. This obviously is no good. On the other hand, the two-clause BSD licence (really meant for programs written in interpreted languages where there is no binary form) and allowing distribution in source form only is just as inappropriate, because how are you going to compile a kernel without running some sort of kernel?
IMHO the best compromise would be a licence that looks BSD-ish -- short and sweet -- but incorporates wording that obliges anyone who supplied a program in binary form to make an offer, valid in perpetuity, to supply the source code for a fee not exceeding the cost of the blank media plus delivery -- effectively gratis. Supplying binary and source together would of course satisfy the requirement.
But what I'd really like, of course, would be for it to be made the law of the land that every programmer must make their source code available on request. Well, we can dream, can't we?!
Just like every other license, you have to have ownership before you can license it out. The GPL is no exception. You have to assign ownership to the FSF so that they can enforce the license.
Now that may be fine for someone else, but I'd never assign ownership of something I did to Stallman. He's a nut. And after his comments about trying to eliminate the LPGL, and his anger toward Gosling/Epoch/Xemacs, it's clear he is more interested in control than the his in the development of software.
It's just his politics, he doesn't hid it. The GPL is designed to build up the body of free software to the level of pay software and eliminate pay software. I'm not interested in any kind of exclusionary system like that. Just let software developers develop, don't force them into a political battle.
Relicensing to any other license is unlikely to happen for the Linux kernel because many Linux kernel hackers contribute their code to Linus Torvalds but retain the copyright themselves. Torvalds doesn't collect copyright assignments. However, a switch to a non-copylefted free software license (like the new BSD license) would adversely affect the free software community:
How successful they would be on their own terms is not relevant. The GPL was written to help the GNU project fulfill its goal of spreading software freedom. Thus it is pertinant to determine if any proprietor is able to stifle the spread of software freedom, not how much profit they can acquire in the process of stifling our software freedom.
Stephen H. Wildstrom is asking for the free software community to turn share-and-share-alike into a gift to proprietors. Wildstrom uses specious logic that will result in us losing our ability to preserve software freedom for derivatives. He and BusinessWeek should be told to encourage their business audience to compete and provide something better instead of trying to get something of value for nothing. If there is to be real competition, that competition must be free software as well. The frame of the debate has shifted sometime over the past 20 years and there's a new factor to consider -- software freedom.
Digital Citizen
The Linux kernel's preamble does NOT contain the same verbage as the the standard preamble.
Linus has specifically limited the Linux kernel to GPLv2:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
(posted in 'code' style to get around the stupid lame filter).
obviously this could be abused as well, so watch out.
The GPL has rarely been to court precisely because its implications are clear. Violators settle quickly because the alternative is to stop shipping product. Grumblings about "murky" license terms amount to nothing more than sour grapes.
In any case, changing Linux's license is a practical impossibility. Hundreds of people and companies own bits of it, and all would have to agree to a change. Linux is condemned to retain the source of its success indefinitely.
Yo, troll, I'm talking about copying it and THEN
GIVING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. I would never
advocate what is called fair-use. Making backup
copies of any digitally stored product is
part-and-parcel of ownership. Making 100 copies
and giving them away is stealing.
Nice troll.
oh wait - there already is - it's called B S FUCKIN' D.
damn business-weasels.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
As the author of the BusinessWeek Online article in question, I just want to say a couple of things. First, I actually appreciate all the mail I;ve gotten from SlashDotters (as well as GrokLawyers and others). I;ve replied to some of you, but I can;t possibly reply to everyone. Second, I want to correct two things in Commnader Taco's post. First, I never said that Linux is not safe. I poses some challenges to developers anfd has some particular risks in patent litigation, but I centrainly didn't discourage nayone from using it. And I did not recommend relicensing GPLed software under a different license. I did suggest modifying the GPL and my model, on reflection in the week-plus since I worte the article, would be the Apache license. Finally, I want to correct one point in the article itself. I was incorrect in saying that SCO had purched the UNIX trademarks from Novell. The purchased certain trademarks, inlcuding Unixware and (maybe) Unix System Labs. The basic UNIX trademarks, which aren;t worth very much at this point, have been assigned to the Open Group. Steve Wildstrom Technology & You columnist BusinessWeek
Hardly a model of clarity? It's one of the few license agreements that IANAL can understand without legal help!
Here's another precious quote:
Where "some people" == "Darl McBride", apparently.
Sean
I did a critique on this article, entitled "A Bad Argument Analysed". Basically this article contributes nothing towards thinking on software licensing at all (one way or the other), but it does serve as a useful example of sloppy thinking and shoddy rhetoric.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Every argument that RMS makes about software applies equally to books, movies, magazines, etc. He is basically saying that the people who create something have no right to earn a living from creating. This is good?
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
MS convinced the LINUX folks to switch from the disgusting GPL to the business friendly BSD licence some years ago. This step was neccecary because BSD Unix was already embraced by Apple.
MS replaced the few lines of code belonging to stubborn GPL devotees and gratificated the GPL renegades with a lifelong untransferable licence for the new MSIX OS.
I'm proud to be stubborn in this question
For the Linux kernel it is explicitly stated that only version 2 of the GPL is acceptable unless otherwise specified. From Linus' preamble to the licence in the kernel source:
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated."
Email the writer. Don't just beeyatch among yourselves. The article sidebar lists the email address for Mr. Stephen H. Wildstrom as: steve_wildstrom@businessweek.com
-- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
"Businessweek, the leading authority on linux and open source recommends a licensce switch to BSD."
..
(Speak in the voice of James Earl Jones form maximim effect)
Take heed developers... Businessweek know their shit when it comes to Linux and FOSS...
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
...and remember kids: taking application development advise from 'bidnessweek' is like taking 'bidness' advise from slashdot.
I'm sorry if our licenses arn't corporate friendly.
I'm not sorry. There are many of us who aren't. NDA's and work contracts be damned. Use a pseudonym or online handle that can't be associated with your real life name. Presto! Instant anon actions that can't be easily referenced to yourself.
works for me, works for others.
He doesnt address the most obvious reason why software should not be always free.
If I create software its mine, not RMS or whomever wants to copy it. It is mine by right of creation. If I want to sell it, thats my right, If I want to give it away thats also my right.
The constitutional creation of copyright is merely a restatement of the common law of copyrights. Do I think there should be unlimited copyrights? No...I think pre-1976 system of 28 plus a renewal of 28 years is more than sufficient.
I also think software should have a more limited copyright maybe 10-15 years including an abandonware clause that allows programs not in publication for at least 7 years to be put in the public domain. However authors should have a period where they control their work before its put in the public domain.
Contrary to the BW article, the adoption of GPL'd software is not being slowed down the slightest. If there is a company out there which is paying the extra cost of going the closed-sourced route, they are at a competitive disadvantage in terms of time-to-market and licensing fees.
And note: they are NO less immune to patent lawsuits than someone who uses a commercial distro now are they?
So if the adoption of Linux is only growing, one has to ask themselves where does that leave the current U.S. Patent framework? That is, if Linux and GPL'd software become a very large part of business, it's far more likely that we'll finally have to change the current Patent Laws if they threaten the business interests which are invested in Linux.
As I said, I don't see Linux being hindered at all these days; it's only growing. So that leaves one with the conclusion that either the Patent Laws will have to be changed, if this becomes an issue at all.
That would be an interesting by-product of the GPL now, wouldn't it?
Rapist prefer the Islamic model of female protection to convents, so rapists demand all women convert to Islam or lawsuits will fly. Nun's habits are much to hard to get inside of and the communal living makes it much harder to get at them alone. Islamic dress, by comparison, is much less restrictive and easier to abuse.
The author fails to grasp the GPL, BSD and confuses both with software patent issues. The GPL is not anti business as IBM, HP and many others can tell you. Microsoft and other companies do have something to worry about, but it's simple competition. It's shocking that a businessman does not understand that much. As for his license advice to programmers, he might do better with women's fashion, but I doubt it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No business has ever donated code to a BSD project. Oh no. Never happened.
Are you adequate?
...but then I've heard Linux-bashers actually advocate that Congress or the courts force all GPLed code to be released into the public domain, so don't put this kind of suggestion past unscrupulous bastards.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
The reporter doesn't actually claim anywhere that switching to BSD licenses helps with the patents issue. They're two completely separate points, and neither is offered as evidence for the other.
Are you adequate?
The article doesn't claim anywhere that switching to a BSD license would help with the patent risks. What it claims is that open source software is facing obstacles towards business adoption, two among which are: (a) the patent problems; (b) the anti-corporate culture behind the GPL. This whole slashdot article is based on two things: (a) some zealot who wilfullly misread the article, giving it the most uncharitable and illogical interpretation, to shout it down; (b) a lynch mob of linux zealots that will latch on to any such misreading to puff up their chests and act self-righteous about how superior they are to the suits and their culture.
Are you adequate?
Comments and clarifications welcome:
Linux is burdened with too much intellectual-property uncertainty for
many companies to embrace and develop it further
This entire column is complete bollocks as I will now explain. (FLOSS = Free Libre and Open Source Software - remember folks, brush and FLOSS
daily!)
The open-source movement has had a remarkable run of success that has seen software such as the Linux operating system and the Apache Web server emerge as major challenges to Microsoft (MSFT ). However, the movement is now facing a crisis. At its heart is a question that has been around from the very beginning: How does software owned by
everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?
The same way it's always done - by being more reliable, more agile, better maintained and better supported. I'm also not sure how the author thinks that open source is not copyrighted - all of it is by definition.
then owned by AT&T. Intellectual-property questions about Linux came to the forefront after the SCO Group (SCOX ), which acquired the Unix
trademarks, launched a series of lawsuits against alleged infringers of its rights.
Incorrect - SCO does NOT own the trademarks to Unix.
POTENTIAL INFRINGEMENTS. The central case, a 2003 suit against IBM (IBM ), an important corporate promoter of Linux, has degenerated into
a messy contract dispute with no intellectual-property issues left on the table. SCO's threats to sue companies that use Linux have almost entirely evaporated.
Because they were and are lies. But the author is mistaken. There are "intellectual property" issues aplenty left on the table. IP - which is a lazy and meaningless term that conglomerates at least three kinds of entirely different sets of laws on intangible rights - is going to bite SCO severely because IBM is now suing it for distributing Linux without a license.
But now another problem has surfaced. Open Source Risk Management, a new outfit that indemnifies its customers against infringement claims, found in a review of Linux code that the operating system potentially infringes on 283 patents. Although IBM declared it would make no
effort to enforce its 60 patents involved, some are held by Linux foes, including 27 by Microsoft.
Patents granted in its infinite stupidity by the US patent office. Maths should not be patented.
The potential patent infringements pose no immediate threat to Linux. Such disputes typically take years to resolve, and courts rarely issue
injunctions against alleged infringers. But the uncertainty is taking a toll. In the most significant response to date, the city government
in Munich, Germany, has suspended a massive transition of desktop computers from Microsoft Windows to Linux, pending clarification of
the patent situation (see BW Online, 8/9/04, "Will Legal Fears Freeze the Penguin?").
Munich is going ahead.
But open-source proponents also have to get their own intellectual-property house in order.
Again - what is meant by intellectual property here? Does he mean copyrights? All FLOSS is copyrighted. Does he mean trademarked? The
brands that matter are trademarked. Does he mean patented? Sorry but the vast majority of FLOSS developers don't really care whether the US
allows the patenting of maths or not. If he's talking about "ownership" then he's wrong. As the SCO episode demonstrated, every single line of Linux can be accounted for - unlike many closed-source vendors.
The development of open-source software is increasingly dominated by corporate interests that, one way or another, want to use Linux,
Apache, and other open-source products to make money.
No - it's the other way around. Businesses have to decide why and how they are going to use open source software to survive. Plenty already have decided to use it to make money and give b
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
(As to why the "you too", well, you're like the 4th person I tell this.) The article doesn't actually claim that switching licenses will improve the patent situation. Please stop perpetuating this stupid, self-serving misreading.
Are you adequate?
Please point out where the article claims that switching to the BSD license will help on the patent front. Hint: you won't find it, because it's not there. The solution the author proposes for the patent issue is for the big linux players to set up a fund, not a license switch.
Are you adequate?
...."At its heart is a question that has been around from the very beginning: How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?"
I do wonder when it will be that the anti-gpl advocates finally give up or the general population is educated enough to laff at them loudly.
To change linux licensing means to gaher up all the coders (including the remains of any who have died) for the kernel and get them to agree... and that doesn't even begin to approach any of the GPL applications.
Wildstrom is obviously in some illusional world, for it will be far easier to change the IP laws to fit the landscape.
Which is exactly why there are like 50something different forked BSD systems, each of them unpredictably different from the next. Oh, wait, no.
Are you adequate?
In light of your self-contradicting post:
The GPL has NOTHING to do with your precious IP or ownership of software.
because its heart is exactly what the GPL is about - controlled distribution of owned software by the copyright holder
So is ownership of software what it has nothing to do with or is it what its heart is exactly? Wow, seems like the article was right on about the GPL being hardly a model of clarity. You couldn't even flame the author of a business article without contradicting yourself.
Why did this article even get posted to Slashdot? We are supposed to be better informed than the average person about the GPL, Free Software, etc. but you wouldn't know it from reading the front page. The BSD license has even less patent protection than the GPL. The GPL at least says you grant a patent license for any pertinent patents when you distribute the source. So Microsoft can't take the Linux kernel, distribute it, and then claim people are infringing on their patents in the kernel. They COULD do that if the kernel were under a BSD-like license. I suspect this article is really FUD meant to scare people about the GPL and/or put pressure on Linux developers to let commercial companies use our code without having to contribute back improvements.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Are you adequate?
Here's a guy (Steve Wildstrom, columnist) wanting all programmers to surrender their copyright and give their work away for nothing. Yet when his rule is applied to him (that he should use the BSD license like he wants programmers to do) he fails.
Hypocrite.
GPL has nothing to do with religion. Let's burn the heretic!
"...good to see Stallman being quoted and linked to in a publication Like BusinessWeek."
Why is this good? Do you want the normal business world to know that Stallman is a fucking idiot also? People like Stallman should be well hidden from public view, and only utilized for internal purposes. You do not show the "world" your Stallman! Save him for the rare ( incredibly rare in his case ) flashes of brilliance and otherwise heep him sight unseen.
That's not what you originally wrote in the parent. And, I noticed you were moderated as a troll. Pretty sad when an A/C being moderated at zero is STILL moderated higher than you, isn't it?
Copyright owners are afforded very few, limited rights by law in the US. Those limited rights do NOT include a legally sanctioned ability to limit my rights as a lawful possessor of a copyrighted work to copy it as much and whenever and so often as I darn well please.
Microsoft loves the GPL. They love it when you
donate code to them. So, eviltypeguy, you are
indeed an evil-type guy. You're supporting
Microsoft, Sun, and even SCO. You're supporting
the sworn enemies of free software.
It goes with the satanic BSD logo I guess.
Parent post was funny... but also equally (if not more) insightful. Just as IBM et al are in it for the money, so not all GPLers are in it to benefit big business. It just so happens that the current situation benefits both parties.
Bearing in mind the flaws in the karma algorithm ('funny' mods don't count, but 'overrated' does, hence getting modded +5 funny, -1 overrated *loses* you karma), I'd suggest it would be better in future to mod 'funny' posts with even a modicum of insight as 'insightful' instead of 'funny'.
I said 'in future' because, of course, there's no way to mod this one up (at 5:funny) without modding it down first, negating any benefit.
Moral: Say everything in a deadly serious manner.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The LGPL is good enough to protect your code,
and thus should be used on everything. Remember,
it's no longer the library GPL. You can and should
use it on non-library code.
Going with pure GPL is kind of making a land grab
that goes beyond your own code. That's not right.
While the BSD license is stupid, full GPL is getting
a bit greedy and unfair. Thus, the LGPL.
What has always struck me about the widsom of the BSD license was that it was a way for Regents of the University of California to make available work that was presumably owned by the State of California for the benefit of all commercial entities -- the lion's share of which are/were? in Silicon Valley.
But the work of tens of thousands of individuals across the world, unaffiliated except by a mutual common interest, would not be protected by such a BSD license. The GPL is better suited for that, as several other posters have noted.
So now Mr. Widstrom knows he just cost BusinessWeek its bloc of 13-year old readers?
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
Infact SCO has a much stronger agaisnt them since they are direct descendants of unixware unlike Linux.
http://saveie6.com/
Like so much journalism these days, this was written merely to cause a reaction. If this article had been a /. post, it would have been modded a troll.
And because anyone can pickup this guys code and do what they like with it, he's also supporting GNU/Linux, Redhat, Mandrake, Novell, Government, The Red Cross, Misc Charities, your Grandma, and anyone else who can find a good honest use for his creativity and generosity.
You sir are a TWIT, and I hope your comment gets mod'd into the dirt.
The problem is the very existence of software patents. The solution is to eliminate them. Anything less is endless catering to and reinforcement of insanity.
I don't see anyone discussing the success of the Apache project, which doesn't use GPL. No problems with forking, getting significant contributions, etc. I like developing my open source project based on their software because I think it lowers the barrier for adoption of our software. Our users know that investing in our system could lead to commercial opportunities. "Adoptibility" is our credo. Is there any significant difference between the BSD and Apache licenses?
Never eat anything bigger than your head.
When the dust settles, the GPL will be in great shape. SCO won't be. The lesson that businesses need to take from this is that trying to buck the GPL is hazardous to your business future.
that the real issue is that the patent system, the laws and governing bodies are the actual problem. Yeah, don't even question that. Thanks.
All of the examples cited by businessweek are problems which come up because Linux represents a new way of doing things where the abuse of the copyrights and patents system is the problemn. Linux remains a growing and evolving product because it IS under the GPL license and not the BSD/Mozilla/etc licenses.
Companies want to think in terms of: "If we know something the competitors don't, we have an advantage. Let's screw our competitors and make all the money ourselves." That kind of thinking goes against the idea of OpenSource and the GPL due to the requirement to make source available in the event that the original source is modified.
Linksys tried to pull that stunt when they first started and faced a backlash. Companies see this backlash, this reversal of the command chain where the customers are telling them what they can and cannot be doing to be a threat and a risk.
The GPL code is what keeps Linux open and free for all to enjoy. If the licensed changed, then you will begin to see variants of the Linux Kernel which only one company supported because it was modified to work in a certain way. No review of that kernel is possible anymore because the code is locked and the customer is now, once again, at the mercy of the company for patches, security updates, and fixes.
I'm sure that businessweek and the respective folk who think it is the way to go think that way in all honesty believing it will make Linux better... but this is only because this makes it better for them and them alone.
The GPL license under which Linux is licensed is the solution to the current problem with Copyrights and Patents abuse by large companies in not honouring the spirit of the Copyright and Patents agreements: The eventual release of the rights to the public domain.
Linux is available to both businesses and the public, but is maintained and controlled by the Open Source community AND the Business community. Perhaps _some_ businesses don't like that kind of shared control...
Winged Power Photography
Red Hat can use GPL code.
Government can use GPL code.
The Red Cross can use GPL code.
Excluding parasitic evildoers is good.
Now, go read the Halloween document collection.
You have got to be kidding? What you said was ignorant!
You say Linux popular because of marketing...
Why does it have marketing?
Because it's business friendly!
Ha HA! And all you BSD people said BSD license was better because its more business friendly!
And yet Linux gets all the contributions and support while your BSD flounders in obscurity...
Guess the GPL "zealots" were right after all!
Who exactly is going to take the decision to allow Linux to be distributed under a BSD style license as opposed to (or as well as) the GPL? Surely Linus himself couldn't even make that decision?
Surely you would have to get the permission of each individual who has ever contributed to Linux to allow their code to be released under a different license than the one they gave it to the community under? That sounds like hard work to me, and likely to result in a lot of segments of code being reqritten (if the original author does not agree for example).
Businesses who want to use the code and not give anything back is the only ones who are having problems with the GPL. I for one cant imagine a better way to ensure that no company or person can pillage and burn the remains and walk away with the tresure. Invalidating the GPL would only put the rights back to their respective owners so that wouldnt help one bit. For a company like Microsoft or any other predatory its hard to nail a couple of million coders working for free. The GPL is what holds them together.
Many would surely like the GPL to be lifted so they could steal all the code and then make the authors pay for their own (then incompatible) code!
The reason i dont like the BSD license is that i would have a hard time coughing up dough to buy a product i had a part in and that the one who took the code made incompatible with my original code, deliberatly! I dont like its "please rimjob me twice" kind of message.
HTTP/1.1 400
It seems to me that MS could easily take linux code and fork it off as it is using the code to build a windows enhancement toolkit. I don't think they could add it in so it was part of their OS, but they could follow the cygwin direction. They would have to release any code they produced (including patches and bug fixes) but they would not have to release their Windows (proprietary) code.
Actually I'm not sure why they have not already done something like this. It would gain them support, provide a huge base of freeware that would run on their systems (though they might have to build in a "run x86 linux executable" module of some sort), and generally be good public relations. And, if they did it right (like by building the right kind of virtual machine) they'd probably discover that it would improve their own systems.
I shudder to think of a Slashdot where all the jokes about how we should send SCO $699 were considered "insightful."
The karma whores will just have to find some other way to get more karma *shrug* It's not like you won't hit the cap at excellent if you post well-reasoned thoughts with any regularity, and it's not like this was an accidental change--funny mods used to give karma, and there are plenty of us who will M2 blatant funny -> insighful conversions as "unfair."
The GPL has a clause which provides upward compatibility with newer versions of the GPL, so that if the FSF releases a new, less restrictive version of the GPL, people can choose to use source code released under the old license under the terms of the new license without any action on the behalf of the authors. So if the FSF publishes a GPL 3.0, with BSD-like terms, all GPL code is instantly under a BSD-like license.
But that obviously defeats the purpose of the GPL, and would do serious damage to people who have published their code under the GPL, expecting it to keep its spirit. Even if the FSF decided that the GPL was too strict, it would still be immoral of them to change it in such a way that defeats its original purpose.
Individual projects can relicense under any license they want, provided they get permission from every contributing author who's code they wish to relicense. This is how projects like MySQL can have dual licensed projects under incompatible licenses, with the permission of everyone involved.
I think the GPL is a really good thing for software that needs to be customizable, or that is mission critical. At the very worst you pay the exact development costs for the features or fixes you need, without repaying for features that have already been written.
Like I need good software OpenGL performance until the stability problems with with the Intel 845GV on Linux are worked out, but the Mesa software render always prefers quality over speed, so a couple days ago I downloaded the Mesa source and sped up some parts of it, disabling smooth textures and speeding up the perspective texture mapper to be almost as fast as it is without perspective for only a slight loss of quality. Currently working on the blending, where performance is greatly sacrificed to reduce code size. But Mesa is under a BSD/MIT style license so if you need it fast too and are only a home user without a lot of money you just might have to do it yourself.
And has RMS ever sent the police to compel you to license your code under the GPL? Assuming that you didn't derive it from or link to GPL code?
I have been working with software companies or writing software directly for over 20 years. I cannot tell you the number of great software products that have been lost because somebody thought they were "protecting" it by putting non-freedom licensing on it.
So if software ideas are important... if YOUR software idea is important (even if you don't think it's all that important), you'd be foolish to not put it under the GPL. It's a good way to keep good software from being lost forever.
You didn't actually offer any counter-argument, but merely slagged off the poster.
For those of you too busy to real of the puerile comments on Slashdot today, here's the GPL versus BSD debate in a nutshell:
A) People who do not code, or whose code consists of a single buggy PHP module done last weekend, claim that the BSD license is a "license to rape, pillage, and steal."
B) People who actually code for a living will say "use the license you want, and I'll use the license I want."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
There are a few sections in windows that are GPL and microsoft has to obey.
Ie taking a driver from linux and rewriting it into a windows driver would still require GPL on the driver but no GPL on the rest of the operation of the system.
They can use it they just have to obey the rules good example is the unix layor sections of windows that are GPL they have no problem with it.
Note GPL is really no worse than fighting with a closed that will not change there licence to suit what you are doing.
Here are the differences closed you will have to pay. Closed could give it free to you competors and change you for using it.
Closed you don't have to show the source code.
The rules are simple when working in closed.
Alway keep the gpl in section that are removable(this is always a good idea with code you don't own anyhow).
Do not static link GPL software in unless it is LGPL(Yep licence will take a bit out of you).
Final always make sure that system is not dependant on a GPL part to work ie QT based programs get you this way.
Note using closed breaking these rules still hurt.
Number one a company is aquire by a competor and will not sell you a update program now has major problems.
Number two a company decides to build in a back door you cannot see into the lib you have aquired. I think this is microsofts problem.
Number three a section you comes under a patant claim. You can not see the source code to defend your work.
Now if you cannot work around this there is another patch. Called closed source plugins/libs the plugin for evolution come to mind not able to access exchange without it. Not a problem any more since it is now open source but it is perfectly in the rules.
Patent protection comes from a lot of different ways. Note Closed is a lot higher risk. The bigest problem a patent holder has attack opensource is that the source code was exposed.
There is even a timeline for when feature X was placed in the code. Now attacking opensource can knock you patent dead. Why because the code you are attack could be pior art. That is fulling and independly backup. Now I am closed I claim that the patent used against me was developed X years ago by my company just not placed in the public eye. Now I have to have some way of proving it. Basicly I am stuffed why because the patent holder simply claims that I am covering my tracks and have made up the back record proving it.
It is a lot safer attack closed not open. Note microsoft shared source is at just as much risk as Linux to patent attack. Reason why microsoft most likely put out shared source to protect from patent attack. Beware Linus holds patents as well as a lot of companys that depend on it. Just because Linux its self does not hold patents does not mean that if attack that you will not be attack by other patent holders to protect there interest. Basicly patent attack always risk of destruction of both sides ie the nuke of the software world.
Exactly what did they borrow from BSD? Because I'd be very surprised to know. You don't mean SunOS, do you?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
witness the SCOasaur go through its death spasms, choking on the GPL's dust!
Businesses, as always, you face a choice--innovate, or die!
If you count all the commercial versions of BSD which don't acknowledge they are BSD, you'll get many more than 50 versions. Do you know how many "appliances" there are based on BSD? All of them having customizations and, presumably, improvements, lost forever from the community.
Then why don't they install FreeBSD? It's a fine OS with a great deal of community support. No. I think this BSD'd Linux is just some pointless drivel that we can safely ignore.
Is it even feasible to switch the license on Linux? These days it seems like there are many copyright holders to portions of Linux. You'd have to get every single major contributor to the project to unamiously agree to relicense the project. Good luck there, some of those fellows are die hard GPL'ers.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
From the tone of BW you can make our BILL Gates is getting desperate to keep buggy windoze around for few more years.
Their solution? Relicense to the BSD license
Why not just use, say, FreeBSD instead?
That makes more sense than trying to get the tens of code contributors to move the Linux kernel to BSD. Or trying to move the FSF foundation from the GPL on the GNU part of GNU/Linux. The 'conclusion' is as useful as saying "Microsoft should make all of their code Open Source".
BSD is like giving a person a fish. Linux is beating them over the head to get off their ass and learn how to fish.
MS uses BSD. What has MS given to BSD? IBM uses Linux. What has IBM given to Linux?
You are a nice guy but you are living in a world with extremely selfish people. They don't see you giving your code away as being nice, they see you as a sucker doing free work without them having to do anything back.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That would be tremendously controversial in the open-source community, where the GPL sometimes seems more like an object of religious veneration than a legal document, but it would be good for all concerned.
It's a legal document, and an economic document. It's a simple matter of compensation. Proprietary software provides compensation to the developer via capitalism. GPL software provides compensation to the developer via communism. BSD software provides compensation to the developer via socialism.
None of these three is right, none of them is wrong. It's a question of how the developer wants to be compensated. None of the three is particularly efficient (capitalism, which typically does well on efficiency, doesn't work well with software because of the zero cost of reproduction). Broad statements that any one license "will be good for all concerned" should be an immediate red flag that the speaker is either ignorant or biased.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
But that's not what happens. In actual fact, the Unix parts of OS X are free software (the Darwin system).
It's pretty simple. Companies who modify BSD have, as a rule, very little to gain from keeping their code prorprietary, and much to gain from releasing it. Unix is commodity software nowadays, period-- nobody gains a proprietary advantage from "stealing" it.
Are you adequate?
This is the most intelligent post on the issue of re-licensing - basically ain't gonna happen for exactly the reasons you gave.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Personally, I don't see Stallman getting more attention than he already has as a good thing. As much as I like open source stuff, I don't particularly like his take on it. He acts like OSS is the one true faith and we have some moral imperative to live up to its strictures. That is just as stupid as people arguing that open source is harming business or is some form of communism. Really, self righteous assholes have little to contribute to any discussion.
The take home points are:
1. If someone tries to give you shit about buying/selling software, fuck them.
2. If someone tries to give you shit about writing/using OSS, fuck them.
3. It is *software*. This is not a morality issue in any way, shape, or form.
Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.
Yes, even if it's just innocent stuff like fuel,
food, band-aids, BSD licensed code, whatever.
It is not surprising that "BusinessWeek" would
adopt the Microsoft preference for a BSD-style
license for source code, instead of GPL. M$
considers GPL to be "viral" , because the "chain
of ownership" copyright is harder to break with
GPL. M$ will not, ever, release enough source
code to their core OS and application suites to
permit rebuilding on a different platform. Their
EULAs and NDAs restrict what what can be done
with their applications now (like limiting F/OSS
development with their toolchain). The limits
M$ licenses place on their applications (let
alone ANY M$ source code) is far more "viral"
that any GPL restrictions.
Not only would I NOT want to ever see any M$
source code, EVER, but I wouldn't care to use
THEIR toolchain ANYMORE. The risks to ownership
of any code I might write is in far greater
peril with M$ than with GPL.
Both Microsoft and now "BusinessWeek" endorse
the BSD-style license for OSS because it is
far easier for them to steal & reuse code, and
without any liability to release their changes
back into the community (granted, a minor risk
considering their legal power, deep pockets,
and the legal history they represent.) I would
imagine M$ would really appreciate 100,00 plus
free code writers contributing to their bottom
line -- they could reduce their staff at a time
when F/OSS TCO is beating them up in the market.
There has been enough "corporate welfare" in the
USA as it is -- no need to make the situation
worse. I look forward to a time when GPL is
upheld as a valid license in US courts (which
may be anytime now with SCO Group's chirade
nearing the end.)
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
From the article provided by Bruce: " However, if the infringing acts are for commercial purposes, the exception does not apply and infringement can result."
That's the point he was making, dude. Non-commercial use is OK. Commercial use isn't. Why should it be?
This isn't the RIAA and music downloaded we're talking about.
Your original claim, Bruce, was bogus. Unless you have a better link to back it up, it seems that you are quite mistaken about your interpretation of Patent Law. A
They don't miss the point of the GPL, they're just irked that they can't steal the code without risking the same pimp-slapping over the GPL that IBM is giving SCO. Odds are some "mysterious" backer is really the one perturbed that IBM is willing to test the GPL in court to settle the issue.
There is also the fact that MBA's aren't typically trained on service model businesses, and are brainwashed from day one to believe that product based models such as the shiny disks from the MPAA and RIAA have meaning or value. They just can't seem to grasp that it's the data that matters, not the media.
If they can't grasp something as obvious as that, how can one expect them to grasp that many people and organizations use dual licensing: GPL and a specially negotiated commercial license.
Oh, that's right. Paying the copyright/license holder goes against their policy of keeping it all for themselves and the shareholders.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
While I agree with the rest of your comment, I don't think the lately emergence of so many mis-informed news articles on GPL is just a coincidence. Too many of them in a short time.
First there is some stupid bore at NewsForge saying he does not like the fact he cannot steal someone else's code and sell it as his own, worded to sound as if he cares about the future of Open Source. And this is the third or the fourth similar post by various reporters in the past month. ALL of them claim to be deeply concerned with the future of Open Source.
To all of them I say: OSS is alive and is very well thank you, and a license change would do nothing to "save OSS from imminent doom". Perhaps abolishing software patents is the way to save OSS in the long run. Think about it.
RMS's essays, which form the philosophical underpinnings of the GPL and the copyleft, are based on the conviction that the concept of "ownership" ceases to apply when the digital reproduction technology allows us to make countless, non-degrading copies of the same object.
The point is that by copying a program from somebody else, you are not depriving your source form having that program. It is ridiculous to call this situation "theft" or "piracy", since nobody is being denied of the good involved.
Now, juxtapose this with the typical argument of the GPS zealtot: "If you don't put your code under GPL, a big bad wolf is going to come and EAT YOU!!!." Ooops, I mean,: "If you don't put your code under the GPL, Big Evil Corporations will *steal it*!!!
But... excuse me Mr. Zealot... it's impossible to steal software, according to RMS, from who you draw your inspiration.
Are you adequate?
I've noticed this trend too, and I think it would be naive to assume that there's not some intent behind it. Perhaps Microsoft has noticed that their SCO plans are falling apart, and it's time to move onto the next thing.
I've been involved (not recently) with GPL'd or LGPL'd programs where the mailing lists are filled up for days with threads about how the license should be switched to BSD. The proponents of this switch always make two common claims: first, the desire to switch is driven by some perceived flaw in the GPL (which never has any actual basis); and second, that their motivation for wanting the switch has nothing to do with desire for personal or corporate gain.
The bottom line is that people who want to switch a program from GPL to BSD always have self-serving ulterior motives. In fact, it can save a lot of time if you point that out to them up front and get it out of the way, since it doesn't leave much room for them to argue their case successfully.
Some software companies - like Microsoft, the planet's biggest beneficiary of the BSD license - might lose, but that's about it. For other companies, the GPL guarantees that they get access to excellent software that's contributed to by people and companies around the world. The BSD license has a way of making such contributions proprietary.
The GPL enforces cooperation, and that benefits companies, even if some shortsighted ones don't see that.
I agree.
If a company wishes to sell a product but does not want others to use their source code, they should write it all themselves and keep it secret. It is hypocritical to push people into giving away their code when you are not ready to do the same.
Now, that may offer an unfair advantage to OSS projects but that was the whole point of GPL, wasn't it? And most developers seem to like it just fine. So,
Get your dirty hands off GPL!
Groklaw dealt with this last week.
It was lazy journalism, quoting Wasabi Systems with a vested interest against the GPL. The short of it is that the GPL renders his business model obsolete, as manufacturers take the embedded linux road. Don't they teach research in America anymore?
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I'm a bit confused as to whether you are refering to the original (see the UCB/LBL section) or the revised BSD license.
Under the revised BSD license (which is very similar to the X11 license and is what I am assuming is what you are refering to as the "MIT license") you need only mention copyrights in documentation.
Under the original BSD license you HAVE to mention the copyrights and contributors when the program is used or when the program is advertised.
This guy is looking at it from the perspective of _companies_, i'm sure a lot of them would like it if Linux was using the BSD license instead of GPL.
But it is _not_ about businesses or companies; the GPL is there for _us_, the users! People should get that through their thick fat skull...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
100% agree with the buzzword bussinesspeople relation u described.
however, i cannot agree with your post because of another "buzzword" - LOGIC!
your post says:
1. businessweek writes only for people that "jump on the buzzwords"
2. BSD is not a buzzword
then how come busineesweek has an article about BSD?
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
...good to see Stallman being quoted and linked to in a publication Like BusinessWeek.
They will only quote him when it serves to illustrate their point - in this case that these 'looney' 'commie' GNU / OSS folks are out of their minds when it comes to solid business practice.
I would say - wait for the IBM/SCO GPL ruling before jumping to any conclusions.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The most important difference between BSD and GPL, is which is most popular. Which licence attracts the most contributors and allows for faster development. In this case majority rules and gets visible public acceptance. I see BSD as just being popular for large corporations and keeping the little guy out, whereas GPL includes every one that has some thing to contribute.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I just can't see your point here. Why exactly do you think an agreement is any less legally binding whether it is BSD, LGPL, GPL2 or even GPL? In the end, it is just a license, an agreement over the fair use of the code distributed.
If I were to distribute a program I write and decided I didn't want it to be exploited in a commercial closed source product, I'd probably go for GPL. I would already have the copyright of the code, so while I cannot (by finnish law) give up all the rights for the code by unconditionally public domaining it (whether it was the case anyway), I can however give all the usage, distribution and modification rights to it, with one stipulation; that if the licensee were to distribute my program as binaries, they'd also make the source available and if any derived code were to be made, it should be contributed back to the original source. In other words, the licensee would have full rights to use, learn, modify and distribute the code and binaries providing that they contribute back to the project.
The GPL is there to restrict one thing, and one thing only, that is copyright infringement. If you were to profit off my program, would it be so wrong if I demand a return value in certain cases?
What's wrong with GPL? Why wouldn't it be working for us?
You see there is no stopping GPL or even a chance to get all the thousands of developers to suddenly migrate their code to a new license anyway.
I can certainly agree to the terms of GPL, why couldn't everyone?
- Voice of Ambience -
- Voice of Ambience -
If there was anything useful for Veritas they just could rewrite from scratch pieces they needed. Veritas has enough engineers to do that.
LOL.
Does Veritas has enough engineers to rewrite all the goodies in JFS from scratch? And to deliver on schedule? I somehow doubt it.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048