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."

Comments

No protection

[msgmonkey]

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.

Re:No protection

[product byproduct]

It's businessweek. Business people like to force a useless migration to something different every once in a while.

Re:No protection

[smootc-m]

Switching to a BSD license will just encourage code forking which is bad. We will just end up in another "Unix Wars" scenario with proprietary versions of GNU/Linux popping up with their own incompatible extensions.

The real beauty of the GPL is that it encourages collaboration and sharing with the side effect that forking is discouraged. GNU/Linux is becoming the commodity OS precisely because of the GPL.

Re:No protection

[Bruce Perens]

He's a tech reporter who hasn't investigated the situation much and wrote the first thing that occurred to him. He did a pretty big disservice.

Switching from the GPL to BSD or another license would actually reduce the protection. It doesn't provide any incentive to license the patents for all users. Who do you think is going to develop all of this software if only big companies are able to distribute it legally? We'd be back to proprietary software and proprietary licensing.

Bruce

Re:No protection

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

If MBA's had been involved in Linux from the beginning, there'd be nothing to discuss.
There'd be no Linux at all.

Same old story... Come late to the party, then know all about how it's done.

Re:No protection

[eric76]

I don't see that the GPL does anything at all to prevent code forking.

Say you wanted a different version of Linux that did something differently. So you make the changes, however much they are and you donate them back to Linux.

But the Linus doesn't have to accept those changes. Or he can pick and choose which portions he thinks are good.

But since you donated your modifications back, you are free to use those modifications to release your own version.

In a manner of speaking, there already is a fork of Linux. Except it's a fork that is built into the current release instead of a completely separate fork. I'm talking, of course, about SELinux from the NSA.

What switching to the BSD license would really encourage is everyone else, for example, Microsoft, to be free to use the code for their own commercial purposes.

By switching to the BSD license, Microsoft could release their own closed and proprietary version of Linux. For example, they could use the Linux code to enhance Windows and make it able to run any and all Linux programs available.

Re:No protection

[Saiai Hakutyoutani]

I agree. However, the FSF licenses do have flaws. For instance, linking to a library such as libc or GTK+ requires you to advertise the libraries and the license in the binary executable. Making an exception for dynamic linking would remove that requirement, but the FSF does not exempt any type of linking. I believe a new license should be created with the simplicity of the BSD license, but some of the protection of GPL.

Re:No protection

[grumbel]

The GPL doesn't prevent forking, it just makes sure that code can be merged back and forth between the forks at all times, so that stuff like the WineX vs Wine scenario can never happen with the GPL.

Re:No protection

[aquabat]

I think the point the article is trying to make (although not explicitly) is that a BSD style license would allow big software companies to hide their use of open source software in their products.

Assuming the company is distributing its open source derived software, the GPL requires public disclosure of the original open source software and any derivations, which would give patent holders evidence of infringement.

The BSD license, however, lets the company distribute their product without acknowledging any open source content. They can keep all their code secret. This places a greater burden on the patent holder to prove that a patent is being infringed at all.

I think this is the "protection" the article refers to.

Re:No protection

[Ralph Yarro]

Business people also like open source programmers to release their work under a BSD license rather than GPL.

As a business man I can confirm this and would like to add that we would also like it if you would mail us your life savings at the same time.

Thanks

Ralphie

Re:No protection

[ArbitraryConstant]

Switching to a BSD license will just encourage code forking which is bad.

As opposed to what, picking a development model that forces distributions to fork? 2.6 is the active development kernel, and distributions are now responsible for putting together a stable kernel.

This will cause more situations similar to what Red Hat has done with their heavily customized 2.4 kernel. Distributions will have their own heavily patched kernels that can no longer be easily migrated to the current vanilla versions. There are several distributions with the resources to do this by themselves, and the smaller ones will probably band together to do it as well. If that's not a fork, it's the closest thing to it and will probably lead to a fork in the future.

It's not the BSD license that encourages forks. There were (are) two factors:

-Commerical forks can get specs on hardware that open source ones can't. Since they can't give the code of the driver back to the community, they must fork.

-The BSDs (not the license, but the OSes) are designed as complete operating systems, with a userspace and a kernel in one package. This encourages forking because it's less modular than Linux.

It's not the licenses that do it, it's the unique position the BSDs are in. There are BSD licensed projects which do not fork, such as Python, which uses a license similar to BSD. By similar, I mean it explicitly says you can fork, keep the code secret, and sell the results. Python hasn't forked because there's no motivation for people to do it.

Re:No protection

[Ruie]

GPL does help with code forking - it gives you the freedom to do with the fork as you please.

As opposed to buying forked software (say Mac OS X) and then having to wait for the developer to fix bugs in the portions of code that are binary only.

In other words, the help is not in prevention of forks, but rather in making it easy to merge them back.

Re:No protection

[oolon]

The point they miss (because they are looking back) is many corportate donors of software source in linux would never have done it if it was not GPL. As the GPL maintains a level playing field, if a competitor takes the code and uses it they have to give back (or rather forward). If Linux had been BSD all the donations could have just been torn out of linux and used in other things. I believe resulting in the donations not being made in the first place, do you think IBM would have dontated its filesystem if it thought Veritas could just take the good bits of the code?

James

Re:No protection

[Tony-A]

SOP for a new CEO.
If it was centralized then decentralize it.
If it was decentralized then centralize it.

Re:No protection

[bwalling]

As a business man I can confirm this and would like to add that we would also like it if you would mail us your life savings at the same time. Should I send it to your address in Nigeria? Alternately, I could just deposit it into that account I have set up for our other transaction. Please let me know, as I know this is of utmost importance.

Re:No protection

[TheRaven64]

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).

Re:No protection

[znu]

But the fact that software is licensed under the GPL may in some cases prevent companies from using software at all, which could reduce contributions. For instance, look at what Apple has done with Safari. Apple has created a proprietary browser and a proprietary rendering framework for OS X. Because the KHTML rendering engine was released under the LGPL rather than the GPL, Apple could leverage all of that code in that proprietary software. And in return, Apple has made massive contributions to KHTML. If it had been impossible for Apple to use KHTML without open-sourcing everything, it's easily possible Apple would have looked elsewhere for a rendering engine, and KHTML would have lost out on all that new code.

Re:No protection

[Tony-A]

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.

Re:No protection

[Tony-A]

BSD has a few forks.
Linux has many forks.
Main-line linux, as on kernel.org
Red Hat Linux, with a modified (forked) kernel.
Various patch sets that haven't (yet) made it into the main line.
By applying different combinations of patch sets, you can have more different possible kernels, this is before you start configuring, than there are places to put those kernels.

The critical difference is that Red Hat 2.6 is a fork from the main-line 2.6 not a 2.6 fork of Red Hat 2.4. Forks that aren't worth keeping up with just wither and die. Linux gives the outward appearance of not forking, because there is about as much merging as there is forking.

Re:No protection

[rking]

The original poster's argument wasn't that IBM wouldn't contribute code unless they were forced to, it was that IBM wouldn't distribute code if other companies could take that code proprietary.

Your examples are still good ones in refutation of that, as I believe they are under licences that permit others to make proprietary derivatives, but your actual comment seemed to be based on a misreading.

Re:No protection

[eric76]

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.

Re:No protection

[Amiga Trombone]

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.

I still don't see a problem. The original code would still be free. Just because Microsoft releases a proprietary version of a free OS doesn't mean anyone is obligated to use it. Anyway, that's essentially what Apple did with BSD, built a proprietary OS on top of an open source infrastructure. In the main, I'd say both Apple and BSD benefited from the arrangement. And if you don't like Apple's extensions, generic BSD is still available.

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.

So they did, and they were perfectly entitled to. So what damage accrued to BSD or TCP users as a consequence?

Re:No protection

[maximilln]

If linux did switch to the BSD license, and Microsoft did indeed fork and make their own proprietary version, that does not nullify Linus' own repository

Please remove your head from the clouds.

This is not a battle which is at the capitulation point of a killing stroke. Microsoft would love to have a chance to sink their programmers into Linux. They would devote 250% manpower to it. Within a year Microsoft would patent every single functional feature which they add to Linux. They would patent a "window manager integrated with a kernel" by stuffing KDE into the kernel. Within two years Linus and the FSF would receive a cease and desist order for violation of patents.

So what bad came out of the for the BSD folks?

The BSD folks are poster children and special cases. They were granted their immunity when they beat the AT&T suit. BSD won the AT&T suit only because of its social and political connections. No modern programmer could even pray for such a blessed immunity.

Re:No protection

[maximilln]

Just because Microsoft releases a proprietary version of a free OS doesn't mean anyone is obligated to use it

Market position and monopoly play a more important role here. Microsoft would happily take Linux and then patent all competing distros out of existence.

In the main, I'd say both Apple and BSD benefited from the arrangement

It's clear that Apple kept their head above water but I'm not so sure that BSD was affected one way or another. BSD won its free pass when AT&T was sent packing.

Re:No protection

[Anonymous Writer]

If MBA's had been involved in Linux from the beginning, there'd be nothing to discuss. There'd be no Linux at all.

Same old story with the suits. They like to pretentiously spew so much bullshit from their gullets, like they know what they're doing in this boardroom pissing contest, that someone needs to follow them around with a shovel. They're the same suckers that automatically write checks as pavlovian responses to software obfuscatedly described with catch phrases like "scalable", "robust", and "e-commerce", and think they know better about what software to implement than the IT personnel. Lay off a huge chunk of the workforce, prematurely quit when the company is worse off than when they got involved, yet still get that seven-digit golden hand job as part of their contract. I bet Businessweek thought Enron was a good idea.

Re:No protection

[schon]

I still don't see a problem.

Then you have blinders on.

The problem isn't that the original code is free, or isn't free, or that MS's version is or isn't free. The problem is that THERE IS A FORK THAT WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO MERGE BACK.

A major point of Free software is to reduce the amount of wheel reinvention. Everybody gets to see and use everybody else's code. BSD-to-commercial forks provide a major impediment to that.

So what damage accrued to BSD or TCP users as a consequence?

MS TCP-users were not able to take advantage of the advances to the BSD stack, and are now stuck with a crippled version. This is the whole point.

Re:No protection

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That takes board members.

Believe me, none of these guys have a national allegiance worth mentioning. How do you think all these Corps are governed by Bermuda and Costa Rica, anyway? Of course, shareholders (you and me) are part of the problem, too. Gotta have a return on our own investments, and won't stand for anything that works towards the long-term economic health of the nation, if it affects dividends or short-term pricing.

Re:No protection

[femtoguy]

For the business types to understand the point, you have to use their language. IBM chose Linux over FreeBSD. They chose GPL over BSD license. So did Novell. So did HP. So did a lot of other companies. In fact I cannot think of a single large vendor who chose FreeBSD, OpenBSD or NetBSD over Linux, despite the fact that they offer a similar feature suite. (You may argue with the specifics of that, but to a business person, they are all operating systems, they all run on X86 hardware, use X11 as a windowing system, and on and on). Not one. The market has voted with its feet, and has said clearly that companies do not like BSD style licenses . If they believe that companies should chose BSD licenses, they might as well suggest that Detroit put big fins back on their cars, or that McDonalds only serve tofu burgers and rice cakes. I do not know why business people trust the markets so much in some cases, but not in others. When some big company choses FreeBSD over Linux, they can talk about license changes, but for now there are only two that work: GPL (and LGPL if you want to get picky) and proprietary.

Re:No protection

[HanzoSpam]

Then you've no objection to MS taking, say, Kerberos, adding proprietary closed-source info to it, incorporating it into the next OS, and by force of numbers causing it to become the 'standard' version, with all other Pre-existing versions becoming broken in the eyes of millions?..

For the umpteenth time, what stops them from re-implementing Kerberos as closed source software, and doing the same thing now? The GPL only prevents someone from using the actual code. It doesn't prevent anyone from re-implementing an idea as a closed source program. That's entirely outside of the scope of either GPL or BSD.

Re:No protection

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Linux doensn't have a UI, to speak of. It's a Freakin' kernel. ;-)

MBA's are not busu=iness experts. UI folks are engaged in a behavioral science, with blind-studies and metrics. MBA's saw the "Internet phenomenon", and with their "expertise" created the dot-com bubble.

In other news....

[rokzy]

Women should give up their personal rights to make it easier on people who want to rape them.

Less incentive to develop

[dukerobinson]

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.

Re:Less incentive to develop

[rokzy]

no it doesn't. that's like saying being able to kill people increases your freedoms.

it may be true for a minority of people who want to kill, but it means that EVERYONE loses the "freedom" to feel secure against random deadly attack.

taking it further, the most free society is one with no laws whatsoever, but in such a society freedoms can be easily lost.

the GPL is like "Civilisation for Software" - it may mean you lose some freedoms, but in return the freedoms it gives are protected.

Re:Less incentive to develop

[zarr]

What's most important, freedom for developers or freedom for users? The GPL is all about freedom for users, while the BSD-style licenses give much more freedom developers/corporations to do whatever they want with the code.

Personally, I'm going for freedom for users. I want the software I use to be open source. I want to have the ability to bugfix and extend the programs I use. I don't want closed source programs to hijack my data!

More people should read the GPL and some of the background info on why it is the way it is. Then maybe we would have fewer of the BSD-is-more-free-than-GPL trolls (I'm not necessarily implying that the parent poster is one of them...)

Re:Less incentive to develop

[jsebrech]

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.

Re:Less incentive to develop

[stemcell]

"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."

It's only "*even more free*" in the short term. As soon as some punk improves it and closes the source the whole thing becomes much less free.

Which I imagine would be particularly irritating if they took something you'd written, added a function that you really wanted but didn't have the time / ability to code, and then deprived you of the right to use their modifications of *your* work without paying them a fee.

Stem

Re:Less incentive to develop

[Waffle Iron]

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.

That's why the GPL'd Unix clone is currently getting more attention than the BSD-licensed versions. The most free doesn't necessarily imply the most popular.

This is especially true of the big corporate code contributers. They are using the OS to sell hardware and support services. They just aren't going to release their improvements to the OS in a totally free manner that lets a competitor fork their code in secret to gain a competitive advantage.

Sometimes it's annoying that there's a lot of GPL'd code out there that would be nice to use in an incompatible fashion. However, that's just life. You don't get something for nothing all the time.

Re:Less incentive to develop

[Trelane]

This isn't about Microsoft, although it could well be (they can't use GPLed code like they use BSD'ed code in Windows).

It's actually a very different, very critical point: if there were no GPL, Red Hat, Novell, and others could very well release their own binary-only kernels/utilities and the Linux world would fragment like the Unix world. It's the GPL that's holding the Linux community together.

For instance, say that SuSE gets 90% of the Linux "marketshare." They then start introducing changes in the kernel and standard software stack which other vendors (hardware/software) rely on, due to their market dominance (sound familiar?). However, we note that, in order to be Linux and use the Linux kernel/software stack, they must release the changes back to the world under the GPL. Thus, Red Hat, Gentoo, Debian, and others all can stay 100% compatible with SuSE despite SuSE setting the de facto Standard. If SuSE comes up with Licensing 6.0 and tries to coerce their users into it, the users have much less of a barrier to switching away to other Linux distros because of this compatibility! Thus SuSE's power is checked despite monopoly position.

Now, there is fragmentation in the Linux community due to different distros relying on different software, and having slightly different systems and configurations. This can be mitigated, however, by following the Linux Standard Base, and we must encourage our distros to follow the standard and work to develop the standard to prevent this fragmentation. It should be a fairly easy problem to fix, of a much different order than the problem with the binary unix compatibility fragmentation.

Re:Less incentive to develop

[kanly]

This whole thread seems based on the premise that you actually could, in some way, relicense Linux under the BSD license. This isn't as easy as you might think.

Relicensing checklist:

1. Go to Linus, and get him to release the portions of Linux that he owns under the new license.
2. Armed with his blessing, go to each person who's ever contributed code, and get them to sign on. Last time I looked, this was at least a few tens of thousands of coders. Some are deceased, so you will have to get permission from their heirs.
3. Ask the FSF to release glibc under the new license. Wear body armor.
4. Go through every userspace program you want. If it is GPL'd, either get the author to relicense, write a replacement, or do without. Good luck trying to even find all the authors, let alone get them on board.

It's widely considered that even Linus Himself could not push through a license change. No need to worry about a corporation doing it.

If you want something under the BSD license, you might want to use BSD.

Leave me alone

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Leave me alone

[kfg]

So you stupid reporters and lawyers can as well stop argueing about license switches. . .

It doesn't work like that. I think it takes a silver bullet or something.

In any case the article evinces the same basic flaw in perception that we see over and over again, no matter how many times you explain it to them they will persist in thinking of Linux as a product.

Not to mention the fact that they rarely even know what the hell they're talking about, e.g. the statement that SCO acquired the UNIX trademark. When you see uninformed shit like that in an article you know that the article is, well, uninformed.

Move along, nothing to see here but media hack.

KFG

Re:Leave me alone

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Exactly, i think most serious open source coders are well aware of what the license they choose means. I specifically choose GPL instead of LGPL for a library i'm writting because that's what i wanted.

I'm sorry if our licenses arn't corporate friendly.

All your software are belong to us!

[bap]

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!"

Re:All your software are belong to us!

[Bastian]

What the author is really asking for is for Linux to transition from this bizarro-world that many businesses are afraid of and can't understand to the nice simple regimented money-based world they are used to.

In this world, if you get something for free (as in beer), you should be able to do anything you want with it. They can't understand the idea of nonmonetary compensation. The idea of, "You can use it, but if you try to do anything else with it you have to let us use your version, too." comes across as some sort of wacky bait-and-switch. The whole thing gets broken into two parts:
1. It's yours. Take it.
2. No, wait, WE WANT YOUR SOUL! SOUUUULLLS! RARRRRRRRRR!
(Of courrse, it doesn't help that MySQL AB really does try to do the above.)

I'm sure it's frightening for lots of business folks. They don't like it when they can't pretend to understand what's going on.

Re:All your software are belong to us!

[bcrowell]

Ahhhhem:

1. I, for one, welcome our new BSD overlords!

• 1. BSD license
• 2. ???
• 3. Profit!

• In Soviet Russia, the user licenses you!

And of course:

1. BSD is dying!

Re:All your software are belong to us!

[Coryoth]

In this world, if you get something for free (as in beer), you should be able to do anything you want with it.

Interestingly the business world seems quite happy with the concept that if you pay for it you certainly can't do anything you want with it. Witness software licensing, the RIAA, and many other practices that amount to "You bought it? So what, you can only do what we tell you to do with it". It seems odd that while this is perfectly acceptable practice, if they get something for free they can't comprehend that there might still be the same sort of strings attached.

Jedidiah.

Re:All your software are belong to us!

[Landaras]

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

But how would changing licenses help?

[OneDeeTenTee]

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.

Not even an article

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Not even an article

[kasperd]

Microsoft should switch to the GPL.

Not the most likely thing to happen, but still a lot more likely than Linux switching to a BSD license. Don't forget that for Linux to switch license, every single contributor must agree. One person already said he wouldn't accept it. Neither will I. The code I have contributed so far is only a few lines, but I'm sure enough people will disagree with this suggestion, that if you remove all the code we have contributed, what remains will not be a working kernel.

Besides, I don't see how the license could have any influence on patent issues. No agreement between author and end user can remove your obligation towards a third party patent owner.

Why don't they mention FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Not going to happen.

[BJH]

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.

Re:Not going to happen.

[Peter Cooper]

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

Unoriginal. This concept has already been done in the 'Predator' episode of Sealab 2021. It actually worked.

No can do!

[tomhudson]

If it's GPL'd, then everything up to the license chance would still be GPL'd, and it would immediately fork into GPL'd and non-GPL'd.

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.

Logistics

[keiferb]

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.

idiot

[sPaKr]

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.

License Change

[EinarH]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[oolon]

But this is what people just don't get. Linux like all other GPL source is copyrighted, If the GPL licence agreement is proved to be invalid that does not mean suddenly linux and all other GPL code is now public domain. Linux would still be copyright and everyone who was not the copyright owner would not have a valid license to use it. Until issued with a new agreement from the copyright owner. This is one of the strenghs of the GPL, if your defeat it you can no longer play with the toys rather than being able to steal them.

James

Lamest.... article.... ever....

[gsfprez]

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".

Re:DUPE

[An Onerous Coward]

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.

Busenessweek troll

[Anonymous Coward]

A few points. First, the author misrepresents the GPL:

The GPL not only requires that any programs licensed under it be freely distributed but also that any modifications made to the software, or any other software derived from it, are themselves automatically covered by the GPL.

The GPL does not require that any programs licensed under it be freely distributed. It only requires that if you distribute it, you also make the source available. You may charge for the binaries if you want. You may also keep it closed-source if you do not wish to distribute it (in-house projects).

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.

Bad understanding of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the GPL is hardly a model of clarity, and few disputes involving it have gotten to court, so case law has done little to clarify its meaning.

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.

Re:crackhead...

[mistered]

or the SCO Group (SCOX ), which acquired the Unix trademarks. Geez, that's the one thing SCO admits they don't own.

Re:hail

[Anonymous Coward]

While I disagree with the article, I can't help but notice the author got one thing right: the GPL is less of a legal document in our eyes and more of a religion. Like all religions, we have to be careful about losing sight of our purpose because of "ancient traditions."

The GPL Ver. 2 is great and works today; but we always need to ask ourselves if it is ready for tomorrow. Maybe we'll need to migrate to a version 3, or maybe we'll need to migrate to BSD. The point of this article, IMHO, is that we need to keep questioning whether the GPL is still working for us.

(posting as AC to protect my karma)

Re:hail

[imroy]

I belive in spell-checkers!

Defeating the point of Linux

[raistphrk]

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.

How would a switch protect against patents?

[mslinux]

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.

GPL affects patents issues

[jeanicinq]

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.

Re:GPL affects patents issues

[Bruce Perens]

however, patents only affect commercial software.

Sorry, but this is not the case. In the U.S., patents even effect use. Use is clearly given by the law as one of the acts for which the patent holder can bring suit. You are liable for patent infringement by software that you write and use privately in your own home.

Yes, it's a broken system. We have to fix the law.

Bruce

Re:GPL affects patents issues

[Bruce Perens]

Please read this.

Thanks

Bruce

Two words..

[tobybot11]

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[glMatrixMode]

mod parent up

besides, this has already been discussed at Groklaw :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200408140 64859996

Asking the wrong questions

[irexe]

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?

Hey, Businessweek, stuff it.

[HangingChad]

Oh, if those OSS people would just use a different license, then you'd get the backing of the business community. Ooooweeee.

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.

Simple BSD allows rape

[SmallFurryCreature]

Business doesn't want to be restricted, no minimum wages, maximum working hours, safety rules, GNU style licenses.

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.

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[MsGeek]

Which is precisely why Microsoft has been pushing BSD licenses instead of the "viral" GPL. This Businessweek article is basically a truckload of astroturf on MS's behalf.

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[eviltypeguy]

"rape"...

I write just about everything under a 3-clause BSD license. Do you know why? Because when I write something and give it away, it's really free to do whatever you want with (except of course claim it's your own).

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. So software can be a true gift without any "strings" attached. So it isn't "rape".

Just the opinion of a programmer who writes BSD-licensed software...

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[maximilln]

except claim that it's theirs

To: John M. Programmer
From: Microsoft

Dear Mr. Programmer,

We regret to acknowledge that you are correct in your assertion that your source code was included in a recent Microsoft product. Our compiler stipped out the comment line which acknowledged you as the original author. The acknowledgement will be reinserted upon the next formal release of the software which is scheduled for 2007.

In the meantime we've taken the liberty of patenting all of the functions which the software may be used for. While we will happily reinsert the acknowledgement into the binaries we will have to ask that you cease and desist all further distribution of your own work in this area as it violates three patents which are pending approval.

Sincerely,

Redmond, et al.

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[nihilogos]

So software can be a true gift without any "strings" attached

Don't you think it's a bigger gift if you ensure that not only your work, but extensions of your work are freely available to the community too?

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[node 3]

"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.

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[theLOUDroom]

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.

Slashdot Recommends License Switch for MSOffice

[originalhack]

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.

Re:buzzwords

[Bastian]

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.)

This is a very poor article

[I_redwolf]

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.

Privatization wet dream

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

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.

Re:Privatization wet dream

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Instead, Businessweek, being what they are, is in the business of fantasizing about free giveaways to large companies.

So, BusinessWeek is really just porn for MBA's. I guess that makes the golf course their version of Hooters too -- all those big round curves and that hole they are always trying to get their balls into, swinging their rods of wood and iron around.

Re:Privatization wet dream

[killjoe]

The funny thing is that the GPL only comes into play if you are modifying the source code AND redistributing it to third parties. What percent of corporate america does that? Maybe 1%?. For the 99 percent of corporations the GPL does not even apply. You don't have to agree with the GPL in order to USE software.

Flawed assumption

[Our Man In Redmond]

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.

ABSOLUTELY CANNOT SWITCH TO BSD LICENSE

[Theovon]

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".

Re:ABSOLUTELY CANNOT SWITCH TO BSD LICENSE

[timmyf2371]

As another poster has stated, how would this work with the following clause of the GPL?

"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"

If another later version of the GPL was published and used, which was more in-line with the BSD license, would the desired effect not be possible?

Re:Despite this, BSD is still here.

[antiMStroll]

I don't know why you were down-modded, but you raise an excellent point. If the BSD license is so much more advantageous, then why do we have three incompatible 'BSDs totaling a small percentage the market penetration of Linux? They've all been around a comparable period of time. (BTW, I really like and use FreeBSD. This is about licenses.)

Re:So, Invent Something Better and Patent It

[faedle]

You missed the whole arguement.

You _CAN_ patent ideas now, apparently. That's the whole problem of software patents. It is completely possible to write a patent that describes a mechanism for "delayed reaction to user input" in vague enough terms to pass patent muster, but not cover a specific implementation of same. Since Patent Is Not Copyright(tm), you don't have to show actual code, just a reasonable enough block diagram of how it works.

Look at Amazon.Com and "one-click". The whole point of Amazon filing that patent (according to Bozos..err, Bezos) was that it was a generic enough filing to prevent anybody from coming along, doing something similar, and filing a patent on it and suing Amazon.

I wrote to BW, and said this.

[Markus Registrada]

I'm afraid your columnist, Mr. Wildstrom (in "Big Fly", 8/13), has been taken in by some who envy the success of Linux and GNU Project software. Every success is dogged by advice to abandon the wellspring of that success. For Linux, that wellspring is the GNU General Public License. IBM could (and can) as easily adopt a BSD-based OS, just as Apple did. With the best legal advice available on the planet, IBM chose the GPL.

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.

Re:I wrote to BW, and said this.

[Halfbaked Plan]

Apple adopted the 'BSD-licensed' OS that they did because it merged smoothly with the NeXT OS from the company that they purchased/were-bought-by when Jobs returned. It had little to do with having 'the best legal advice on the planet.'

My favorite line

[sean.peters]

Unfortunately, the GPL is hardly a model of clarity

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:

"Some people argue that the GPL as a whole isn't even enforceable.... "

Where "some people" == "Darl McBride", apparently.

Sean

Businessweek..

[polyp2000]

"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 ..

And of course...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

No business has ever donated code to a BSD project. Oh no. Never happened.

Re:And of course...

[oolon]

I was just saying the GPL rather a good method for attracting contributions, not that it was the only way. Companies (who are the copyright owner) can even use it to showcase the code and allow commerical licencing to companies if required (trolltech for example). If trolltech offered a BSD version they would have never sold anything. XFree86 which was BSD had alot of problems attracting manufactures to contribute driver code, evenually having to go down the binary route as a result. GPL seems a better half way house to me... but thats me I like GPL alot more than BSD licence.

James

Re:And of course...

[oolon]

Yes I see your point it was badly worded by me, there is no way to prove that the donations came cos of the GPL or just because it large. As clearly small projects are likely to attract less donations. However I do believe the GPL has helped attract contributions (both personal and corporate), as I believe the GPL offers better protection from the abuse of a gift of code. It is also interesting that BSD which was more advanced (some would claim still is) when Linux started yet failed to catch on. Perhaps that was more because of the development model rather than the license? As you point out, we can't know the answers.

James

Re:And of course...

[Zork the Almighty]

I think that re-releasing code under a more restrictive licence is unethical, period. And I think the real difference between the GPL and BSD development model is one of effort. The people who keep FreeBSD open and competitive have expend a lot of effort to do it. Often, (as you note), various improvements are contributed back, but the developers can't rely on that like the GPL developers can.

Each licence has its own strengths. I think the GPL is a better licence to have in a competitive marketplace, because it can better defend against companies with unethical tactics. The BSD style licences are better suited to well-developed technology, where technical excellence is the main consideration, and competitive posturing is minimized.

I wrote a rebuttal to this on a mailing list

[mav[LAG]]

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

The irony here, of course...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Switching to a BSD license will just encourage code forking which is bad.

Which is exactly why there are like 50something different forked BSD systems, each of them unpredictably different from the next. Oh, wait, no.

Yes, make fools of yourselves, just like I did

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Here's the email that I sent to this suit los3r:

Non-dear Micro$oft shill Mr. Wildstrom:

I did not read your article, since slashdot reported on it, and of course the contributors and editors never read articles incorrectly, and never attribute strawman claims and/or arguments to pieces they are opposed to. This is because they, I mean, we, are geeks, and we are the smartest people, and never tell lies (read the first few chapters of ESR's Jargon File, it explains how cool we geeks are).

Anyway, I am writing to tell you how stupid you are. I know this because Slashdot says that you said that Linux should switch to the BSD license because it would help it avoid patent issues. I know that your article claims that, because Slashdot said it did, and Bruce Perens also responded knowing that it did, and of course Slashdot and Bruce Perens must be right.

I cannot imagine how a human being can claim something so stupid and obviously wrong. Logic, if applied strictly, should then warn me to suspect that Slashdot has misreported what you said. But, hey, it's Slashdot vs. a dumb suit, so of course Slashdot must be right.

I will tell all my friends in Slashdot to write you emails just like this one.

Fuck you,

--E.M.

BSD License -- An Investment POLICY

[joab_son_of_zeruiah]

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.

Business week hack = troll

[AnomalousTurd]

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.

wrong problem, wrong solution

[samantha]

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.

nevermind

[wobblie]

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.

A step in the wrong direction

[digital photo]

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...

All your examples are OK w/ GPL

[r00t]

Grandma can use GPL code.
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.

Re:All your examples are OK w/ GPL

[Macka]

Of cause they can all use GPL code too, so what. Does that make the BSD license evil? Not a bit, BSD code is also free, is also written by open source hackers. Tell me again why BSD code is evil, and this time back it up with reasoned well thought out arguments if you can. Or is it that you only recognise one style of freedom, automatically condemning anyone who doesn't share your world view?

Now, go read the Halloween document collection.

And how exactly are they supposed to support your accusation? BSD is attacked equally in two of those documents, and completely ignored in the rest. Have you actually bothered reading them yourself?

Fact: GPL is not evil
Fact: BSD is not evil

Get over it!

The GPL is like garlic.

[miffo.swe]

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.

GPL protects

[theendlessnow]

People forget that the GPL ensures that we do not lose intellectual "property". The big problem with corporations is that they would rather see good ideas die rather than see them live on in the hands of others. But the fact is... people are not owned by corporations (or are they?). GPL gives software the freedom to live on... something that even supposedly more open license like BSD, really do not do.

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.

Re:hmmm, that's cruel

[Grishnakh]

The authors shouldn't have to rewrite your library because they aren't copying, modifying or distributing it. In this situation the GPL is a license to "take someone else's work and dictate to them how it will be used."

A library is simply a convenient way to reuse code by having a set of functions that can be called from other separate programs. If you don't want to agree to the stipulations of the GPL, you're free to write your own library. Your last statement doesn't even make sense. No one forced the library author to write his library in the first place; without it, the application writer would have to do it from scratch. Again, if you don't agree to the license terms, you're free to find another solution.

Lastly, you obviously didn't read the parent post I replied to. He stated that the GPL shouldn't be used at all because it's "too greedy", and that the LGPL should be used in its place for everything, not just libraries.

No, our bases don't belong to you!

[mojoNYC]

RMS knew exactly what he was doing--the GPL is about something greater than profit motive, and the GPL has protected the contributions of thousands of programmers around the world, something that could not have been accomplished in any other way...bravo!

witness the SCOasaur go through its death spasms, choking on the GPL's dust!

Businesses, as always, you face a choice--innovate, or die!

Re:Bruce - You made his point.

[Bruce Perens]

Dear AC,

Yes, I think you are missing something. The court found that the univeristy work was infringing because it obliquely served a commercial purpose of the university such as attracting students. There didn't have to be a direct relationship and the non-profit status was held to be immaterial.

Analogously, as somebody who has upon occassion worked as a programmer, my private programming at home could arguably serve the purpose of increasing my experience, and thus my value as a programmer. Thus it would not necessarily be protected.

Indeed, if you read this report it says there is no educational use exception. It's not an exception for curiousity unless it's idle curiousity, entertainment, or (get this) philosophical inquiry. Note that philosophical inquiry used to include scientific inquiry, but the court certainly does not mean that in this case or they would have ruled otherwise!

Note also that the original comment in this thread is regarding Free Software and whether it is non-commercial for purposes of patent law and thus can infringe with impunity. The problem is that we can not make a case that Free Software is not intended for commercial use. Indeed, in writing the Open Source Definition, I very specificaly required that the licenses make commercial use possible. If asked to testify, I'd have to say that.

Thanks

Bruce

Original or revised BSD?

[Sits]

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.

Quoting RMS...

[Lodragandraoidh]

...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.