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.
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
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
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.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.