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 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.
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.
or the SCO Group (SCOX ), which acquired the Unix trademarks. Geez, that's the one thing SCO admits they don't own.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
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?
A real life example: the linux kernel is BSD-relicensed, DistroInc turns it into a closed source kernel on which a closed source linux distro is based. DistroInc has gained freedoms by the relicensing, but everyone else has lost them, because if the kernel were not relicensed, DistroInc would have to have made their improvements public, thereby benefiting everyone in the community, giving them higher freedom to use DistroInc's advancements.
Of courrse, it doesn't help that MySQL AB really does try to do the above.
This is not necessarily directed at you, but I think a lot of people don't fully understand how MySQL AB operates in regards to copyright / GPL.
MySQL AB offers the MySQL code to all comers under the GPL. If you want to use the GPL'd code under the terms of the GPL, it's right there waiting for you.
If you wish to use the MySQL code in a way that is incompatible with the GPL, you have the option of purchasing a non-GPL license.
MySQL AB accomplishes this by requiring anyone who wishes to contribute code to the authoritative codebase to assign copyright to MySQL AB. (I have not read the exact verbage used by MySQL AB, but I will for a future project examining their business model.)
This assignment allows MySQL AB to offer GPL'd code under non-GPL terms for a license fee. After all, MySQL AB is the unencumbered copyright holder, so they can offer different terms to different people.
The community does still retain a "right to revolution" if we so chose. We could take the MySQL code and create OurSQL or whatever. The GPL gives us that right. The question becomes how many developers and end-users would be willing to abandon MySQL AB and follow that fork.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
"If you do fork anyway, any improvements you do in the forked code that might be useful enough to be included in the official version, will be included (since the GPL requires you to release the code for your changes)."
What you misunderstand is that you have no obligation under the GPL to notify anyone about any modifications you make. If you distribute your derivative work you must provide the source, but that doesn't mean that the original copyright holder will ever see those changes.
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?
I think you are confusing BSD and MIT licenses. The BSD license specifically states that you must acknowledge the use of BSD code even if you only ship binaries (see the IE about box, for example). The MIT license only requires you to include the copyright in the source code (which you do not have to distribute).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You beat me to it, but I'll add this.
The GPL doesn't prevent forking
Round 1. True.
Round 2. Pretty much true.
Round 3. Significant amount of merging of Round 1 forks.
Round 4. More merging.
With a constant forking rate, GPL should eventually reach a smallish number of forks. The GPL does prevent someone from holding turf just because of a few improvements. If they're actually good, in general, "everybody" will have them.
The "Unix Wars" scenario is a result of everybody finding some way, any way, to make their product distinctive and different. There was a time when I think everybody managed to do something different in the arrangement of the keys on a keyboard. But strange is not usually better. You get the same thing the first time a user gets a word processor with lots of different fonts.
Go do your homework before shooting your mouth off. If you have to say "maybe" in here, and aren't sure whether SCO purchased the USL trademark or not, it's very clear that you haven't - and that gives you zero credibility in anything you say.
Let me clarify that point.
What I meant was that if Linux switched to the BSD license, Microsoft could release their own proprietary version of Linux. Under the BSD license, such a release would not have to be open at all.
They already did that with the TCP stack from what I understand. They incorporated the BSD stack in their code and their use of it is not open at all.
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.
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.
"So software can be a true gift without any "strings" attached. So it isn't "rape"."
Well, I guess it's hard to rape an absolute slut, if we follow the metaphor.
"there are many of us who write code, that picked a BSD license because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions other than claiming it's their own"
And there are many of us who write code, that picked the GPL because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions, other than claiming it as, or treating it as, their own.
The BSD license is not the one to use if you want your software to be free, because it allows your software to become non-free. The BSD license if one to choose if you want to give the code away.
That's the main difference between the GPL and BSD licenses. The GPL is about building community and promoting software freedom. The BSD license is about giving away software.
witness the SCOasaur go through its death spasms, choking on the GPL's dust!
Businesses, as always, you face a choice--innovate, or die!
While some people think it's "rape", there are many of us who write code, that picked a BSD license because we want anybody to be able to use our code without restrictions other than claiming it's their own.
Anybody can USE you code under the GPL as well.
What the GPL limits is how you can redistribute that code. The GPL prevents some asshole corporation from taking your highly successful open source tool, making it closed, breaking interoperability, and screwing you with your own code.
I''m not trying to say there is no use for the BSD liscense, but you're using some pretty misleading language here. Personally, I would be "fucking pissed" if I was ever forced to pay money to a company that did the above.
Life is too short to proofread.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.