Slashdot Mirror
GPL Hindering Two-Way Code Sharing?
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has some fascinating coverage of the recent rift between the OpenBSD developers and the Linux kernel developers. Proponents of the GPL defend their license for enforcing that their code can always be shared. However in the current debate the GPL is being added to BSD-licensed code, thereby preventing it from being shared back with the original authors of the code. Thus, a share-and-share-alike license is effectively preventing two-way sharing." We discussed an instance of this one-way effect a few days back.
BSD is a way of giving up control on your code.
Why would anyone trust code on people who cannot even keep on to their own?
It is like lending money to a man who then throws it all across the street.
If i wanted to throw money all around, i would do it myself.
Actually, i would support BSD in a world where there is only GPL and BSD licensed code.
But until that world comes, BSD just hinders freedom.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
This is something that the Linux community doesn't need, because if another open source project starts accusing Linux of using stolen code, us Linux promoters will lose our "moral" highground. Sometimes that's all we have, since we still don't have a marketing machine needed to push Linux into millions of homes.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
You are in a maze with twisty little passages.
Do you tag this article:
* noshitsherlock
* duh
* wateriswet
* slownewsday
* cowboynealsayalloftheabove
Sigh.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The Devil eats the Penguin...
How fitting to pick a penguin as symbol for Linux... a bird who wants to fly, but cannot.
This is nothing new. Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose. Forking happens all the time, usually around licensing or management issues. So aside from the little dust storm we've seen recently regarding the wifi driver and the copyright clause I don't see how this is news.
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened. Kind of making this a none story.
Quack, quack.
Why do they feel obliged to remove the BSD license from the Linux port of the driver? If they just keep it dual-licensed, there isn't a problem. Or did someone issue an edict that Linux kernel code can't be dual-licensed, at some point when I wasn't paying attention?
Ehm, that's sort of the point of the GPL, innit? To keep code from being able to become prorietary.
If nothing else, it'll be a bit more entertaining than the stupid little bitchslap contest that's going back and forth now.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is.
If the BSD guys don't like the license provisions placed on them by the GPL then DON'T USE THE GPL CODE IN FUTURE RELEASES OF YOUR TREE!
Plain and simple. It's then up to the GPL code provider to continue retrofitting their patches to your updates, or fork.
And, either way, they need to retain the BSD license notices.
I don't see why one would NOT have a problem with someone taking the code for a commercial product and rendering it binary-only, yet it's such a huge EEEEEVIL "inhuman" (thanks for that useless bit of idiotic irrelevancy Theo) thing for an open-source license to use the code, retain the license for your portions, and place a separate license on theirs.
Remember, BSD doesn't give you complete control over what someone does with your code. It merely tell them that the licensing requirements must be adhered to.
And, as for the mental cripples who think they can use the GPL as a superceding license to virally GPL blocks of BSD code.
BZZZT!
If you want a particular function, app, service, etc to be completely GPL, WRITE THE FUCKING THING YOURSELF!
Stop trying to use the GPL as leverage in stealing code from others. You'd hate it if it were done to you, and is completely anathema to the intent and wording of the GPL. So stop it you lazy bastards.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Clue: it doesn't mean "as well as".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It's always about how everyone contributes according to their ability, but the Politburo gets according to their greed.
Is anyone surprised at yet more socialist hypocrisy? Socialism is incompatible with human nature, so of course it gets abused.
> I'm no fan of MS, but at least they get that the profit motive is basic human nature. Channeling it, as opposed to denying it, works better. In the latter case, the altruists get abused by those who pretend to play the game, but take control for their own benefit.
What the GPL fans miss is that they are required to dual license the resulting code. That bugs them, because they want a world in which all software has to be GPL. So they ignore the BSD license, on the same basis as corps ignore the GPL "So sue me".
Having talked to a few BSD licence fans most of them like the licence because it allows another group to take their code and close it off.
This is exactly what the Kernel and other guys are doing, they are taking the code and putting a GPL header in there, closing it off from the BSD developers.
The only difference here seems to be that because the BSD developers can see the changes and improvements being made they want to include them. Whilst putting the GPL on may be against the spirit of cooperation it seems to me to be exactly the kind of closing off of the code that the BSD developers want to allow.
People release code under the license they like. If you can't abide by the license then you should not use the code. It's not a complex issue, you either play by the rules or you can't use the equipment supplied by the other team. If you don't like their rules you can make your own stuff and set your own rules.
I like muppets.
The BSD crowd is pissed because people abuse the cruddy license they came up with in the first place and want to throw a tantrum at the linux/gpl/fsf/gnu crowd.
So Theo and the rest of his OpenBSD-Trolls better shut up.
Netrek 2006, for example, has a BSD/MIT style license that says "Do what thou wilt except re-license under a (L)GPL or similarly viral license". The author of that license specifically identifies GPL as reducing the freedoms of the developer, which to be fair I'm inclined to agree with.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No you idiot the files reyk contributed were never dual licensed.
I summrize my view -developer develops code and is kind enough to say that people may use this code in GPL way or in BSD way. -Linux developer derives work fron this code, take away BSD licensing terms, and by that the rights of the people who wanted to use the code and derived works under BSD license. If I, as a developer, for whatever reason, license code under my copyright to somebody, I demand that he agrees with the terms of the licence which I put, because after all I am still the copyright holder. Since GPL and BSD mainly collide in the handling of derivative works in respect to dristributing final products, it would seem to me that only the distributor in the end may chose not to distribute the source code of the device. And since the linux developer cut this right when he removed the license from the file, he is definetly violating the spirit of the dual licensed approach. The dual licensed apporach in nothing else but a "keeping both doors open" policy. While I wont comment on the legal terms i find this behaviour rude. When developing cond in our lab i several times encountered a similar spirit. People who do not honour the idea under which I gave them code which they modified (sometime actually causing work for me). If i give code to anybody it is not an invitation to missionate me into any license
Stop trying to use the GPL as leverage in stealing code from others.
Uh oh, developers are using the BSD license in the way that it was intended, somebody call the wambulance.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Theo isn't the author of the code, Sam Leffler is and he said GPL only is ok with him. Theo is suffering a massive case of the "omg ubuntu shipping on dell, I couldn't shut my mouth and lost huge grants and OpenBSD will never be big wawawa wawa".
Just because it was dual licenced under a licence theo happens to use also doesn't mean he speaks for the author of the code.
``Proponents of the GPL defend their license for enforcing that their code can always be shared. However in the current debate the GPL is being added to BSD-licensed code, thereby preventing it from being shared back with the original authors of the code. Thus, a share-and-share-alike license is effectively preventing two-way sharing.''
Err, no. What is preventing the two-way sharing is (1) people using the GPL with (portions of) the code in a originally BSD-licensed project, and (2) the people in the original project not being willing to accept the GPL-ed code.
This has much more to do with people being uncooperative than it has with the licenses per se. Taking a project and adding code to it that cannot be distributed under the project's license is not a very friendly thing to do. On the other hand, if the license permits it (as both the BSD license and the GPL do), you have every right to do so.
In the other direction, there is nothing _really_ preventing the original project from using the code that uses the new license. The only thing is that terms of distributions (etc.) of the original project would have to change to be compatible with the new license. I fully understand if the authors of the original project are unwililng to do this. However, "we are unwilling to do X" and "it is impossible to do X" are not the same thing.
Since this discussion (probably) started with the whole saga surrounding the Atheros driver, I would like to point out that that story is a bit more complicated than what I have pointed out above. So please, don't reply to this post with details about the Atheros driver case; that's not what I'm talking about.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If you want a particular function, app, service, etc to be completely GPL, WRITE THE FUCKING THING YOURSELF!
That might not be so hard with free code sitting in front of you. That's the beauty of free software. As easy as it may be, it's a duplication of effort and it kind of makes the dual licensing look silly.
What exactly is a dual license if the GPL provisions don't apply or have force because of the BSD portion? There's a fundamental difference in licensing philosophy that can't be ironed out by using both. People who strongly believe in the gpl don't want people using their code the way bsd allows and will never be able to "give back" in any other way than with gpl'd code of their own.
At the same time, what's the big deal with people stripping out the bsd portion? If the bsd people are really OK with the software being distributed as binaries by people who will NEVER give back anything, why would they be so angry at people who will only give them gpl'd code?
It all looks like a tempest in a teapot from lists that have have been played by the usual suspects in Redmond. When someone is an implacable ass, there's often a reason.
GPL and BSD people can live and let live. While it might be argued that BSD code can be used directly by the enemies of software freedom, no one would seriously propose that either the BSD or GPL camp would like to eradicate or subjugate the other.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
and you know it.
> Why would anyone trust code on people who cannot even keep on to their own?
I understand your point. Companies like Microsoft encourage BSD style licenses specifically because they know that in the long run it gives them a chance to destroy an hijack free software. Working for the BSD seems like supporting that destruction. However, there are specific "BSD" people who have a long term record of providing Free software. The OpenBSD project and the new X.org projects are examples (though the history of XFree86 and The Open Group's attempt to hijack X show why you should be very careful with releasing code to the BSD license). These specific "BSD" people's positive contribution massively outweighs the damage their "collaberation" with the enemies of freedom does. Their long term commitment so far gives good evidence that they won't hijack code, so small contributions which give them a big benefit are a good idea. Especially (as is the case with WiFi) where the proprietary world already has a separate solution. Further, these people's collaberation is more of the order of the open and fair help the red cross gives to enemy soldiers in times of war. It's something that you have to accept as an outcome of their ethical beliefs and without which you couldn't have the same organisations.
The reason you should help specific BSD projects is that they provide useful software to yourself and people who you are trying to help. Helping them helps everybody. That help outweighs the damage they do by helping people who are trying to fight freedom. It's that simple.
Q: What happened?
A: A contributor of a patch to the linux kernel didn't notice that it contained both dual-licensed and BSD-only code, and posted a diff that GPL'ed the whole thing.
Q: What happened then?
A: Several things. 1) The mistaken (and clearly incorrect) change of license on BSD-only code was rectified. 2) Theo de Raadt leaped upon this golden opportunity to accuse the linux kernel developers of stealing code and eating babies 3) Separate issues of the legal and ethical obligations related to license changes, dual-licensing, proprietary software, and the price of peanuts in Perth were immediately injected in the discussion and a classic internet blizzard of bullshit blanketed the land of free software.
Q: Latest news?
A: Several developers involved have attempted to help the situation by saying they want collaboration and harmony and dual-licensing their code, but these positive efforts have gone mostly unnoticed as everyone on all sides proceeds to get angry and confused. Apparently high intensity behind the scenes consultations with Eben Moglen have resulted in a daring mission to dual license an OS/2 + Novell Netware application stack under GPL 3 as translated into Babylonian Cuneiform, thus simplifying the situation for everyone.
Q: What's the moral of the story?
A: Sometimes, cooperation is harder to achieve than competition, or "the greedy fox gets stuck debugging the rotten oysters".
In one sense, the GPL does hinder two-way code sharing. You can't distribute, modify, etc. a project as a whole under the terms of the BSD license if some code in the project is under the GPL. So adding GPL-ed code to a BSD-licensed project does hinder two-way sharing.
However, the fact to the matter is that it is the _BSD_ license that allows you to do this. The BSD license simply does not require you to share your changes.
So, if you are asking yourself why changes aren't being shared back, the answer really is that the original authors (who put their code under the BSD license) said it was OK to use their code without sharing back.
Of course, you can still call into question the behavior of people who take something willingly shared with them and then put up obstacles for sharing back with the original authors.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The Linux code is being patched to fix the license problem, says TFA. Here's the content of the patch.
Note what the patch is doing, very carefully. The patch is changing the copyright notices on top of the modified files to say that these files are licensed under the GPL, but are also based upon an earlier work licensed under the BSD, and then reproduce the copyright and license statements as required by the original BSD licenses. This makes completely transparent the following things:
Are you adequate?
Please mod parent up. This seems to be the definitive answer to all of this. Sam has the final say and he's saying that what was done is fine. He (and Atsushi Onoe in the case of the onoe rate control algorithm) hold the copyright to the code and specifically released it dual licence to allow this sort of co-operation.
So, yes, Theo had better shut up. He's damaging the BSD relationship with Linux developers, from whom we get a lot of useful code (think ports).
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
It's really this simple: there is no clause in the BSD license to enforce code-sharing. In fact, this is perhaps the major difference between the BSD license and the GPL, and has been often touted as an ethical advantage by many BSD license proponents. Now apparently some of them have decided that they would like to enforce code-sharing after all, but through moaning and name-calling instead of making their demands explicit in the license.
Well, cry me a river. A license is a legal document and if you agree to one without knowing what you're doing, it's no one's fault but your own.
In related news a debate that the BSD is being added to public domain code, thereby preventing it from being shared back with the original authors of the code.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes. That's because there are situations where it makes sense that somebody should be able to do that. The argument in this case is that this isn't one of them.
That's the problem with your reasoning. You are accusing people who've released code under the BSD of not having considered the cons of the license. In fact, you can be sure that plenty of them were well aware of the cons from day 1, but simply judged the pros to outweigh them. They've chosen to deal with the cons in question here through argument, appeal to ethics and persuasion, rather than by legal action, which would have costs they deem unacceptable.
Now please stop setting up strawmen.
Are you adequate?
And the error has been corrected - they will not be GPLed.
(Though there's discussion if they even are copyrightable work)
Seems like you are the idiot.
I'm a big fan of the BSD and BSD-style licenses. I have written a lot of code under the BSD-style license and been happy about it. It has let me apply that code in places where corporate policies are too anal to allow GPL code. The extensions that ARE made are so application-specific that nobody else would want them anyway. However, my code would never have been used at all in these circumstances if it were GPL licenced.
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. But hey, RMS says that freedom is good, so you can do that, right?"
Does the BSD license allow people to make extensions and GPL the base code plus those extensions? Absolutely. Do BSD-style developers, then, have a right to be miffed if this is what happens? It's a hard question.
I think most of the miffed-ness of the situation comes from the attitude of GPL zealots. A basic tenet behind their license is "if you take code then you have to give it back under the same terms under which you got it." A part of their philosophy seems to be "you should not be allowed to benefit from our code without giving back improvements to it." They are the ones who decided on this policy, and they claim a moral (yes, moral) high-ground because of it. But really, they only mean this within the context of their own ideological community. It's really a difference of attitude.
"Hey, thanks for the code; we are going to use it to further our cause of announcing to the world how much better we are than you."
As an analogy, let's say I go up to you and ask for $20 for an art project. You oblige. For my art project, I make up posters around the city that say:
"[YOU] IS A GIANT ASS"
with your face on them, and plaster them around town. Now, you didn't explicitly stipulate I couldn't, and I was certainly within your legal and artistic rights to do what I did. You have no cause to be angry, right?
I remember a documentary I saw once about land mines. They showed a small mine being dismantled by some poor sap whose job it was to go out and dismantle land mines. In it was a Motorola chip. It was probably some terribly generic part like a 555 timer or 4-input NAND gate or something; it's not like Motorola was in the business of making land mines.
Now, if Motorola saw this, do they have a right to be a little miffed? "Ah," say the slashdotters, "Motorola sold their 555-timer on the open market to any buyer, they have no right to be miffed when someone uses it in a device that blows the legs off little children!" Right?
They didn't "say it was OK." What they did is something very specific, that you're not acknowledging: they renounced their rights under copyright law to deny others of certain uses of their own work, and to be compensated for infringing uses. The legalese involved here is quite clear, and all parties involved know it.
Authors who release under the GPL are trying to use copyright law to force people who use, distribute and modify GPL licensed works to share the modifications under the same terms. Projects that release under BSD are trying to use informal persuasion and appeal to community values and ethics to get people to release changes under the same license. They also believe that in some cases, it is good that their code can be incorporated into proprietary products. They, however, do not believe in using extremely complicated legalese to try to delimit the two kinds of cases.
Thats exactly whats BSD made for. Get everything you like and then throw back into the developers face everything you hate. No need to say thanks. Apple did it, Linux did it, dozends of others do it all day.
Seriously, bragging about this is a sign of total ignorance about the BSD philosophy: Giving away everything without asking for anything. They should feel honored that they are getting ripped like they wanted always to be.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
Honestly, the way some people talk about "Freedom", you'd think it was something you could buy by the wheelbarrow load. Freedom isn't something that exists in and of itself. It only exists in relation to people and activities.
To say that the BSD licence hinders freedom is just insane: it grants close to maximum freedom TO users, developers, and distributors TO DO pretty much whatever they like. v The GPL on the other hand deliberately restricts the freedom of one of those stakeholder groups - the distributors - in order to preserve the freedom of the users and developers in the longer term.
If you say that the GPL licence is more or less free than the BSD licence, all you are really doing is criticising a group of developers for their failure to share your own priorities. That always strikes me as an ugly, intolerant, narrow minded way of thinking.
This whole mess has the stink of FUD about it. There are a lot of people who would like nothing better than to get the GPL devs and the BSD guys together and say "hey, why don't you and them fight?"
I have a suggestion to make: let's disappoint them.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I don't have a problem accepting what you just said, but then please tell me who did dual-license them? And was it a legal change?
If you think about the BSD license in terms of an academic citation, it makes more sense.
In the original patch, it appeared that some Linux folk took some code, stripped the BSD copyright notice and put it under a GPL license. Viewed through an academic mindset, it sounds less like "building on existing research" and more like plagiarism. Were they legally entitled to do what they did? I suspect probably so. Still, it seems like bad form not to cite your sources.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
I would like to draw an apple tree and village and print up a wall plaque with that parable, to replace all those "Footprints" ones.
One question about this I've already asked here:
d =20439181
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=286149&ci
You EVIL slashdot commenters, how can you be so INHUMAN!
The GPL isn't about sharing, it's about ensuring downstream users maintain the freedom to distribute and modify software. The mechanism the GPL uses to do that is one that BSD license advocates promote as a desirable characteristic.
The debate is over a copyright notice, Theo and his army of trolls have managed to pervert that into a hypocritical attack on the GPL. The whining of a vocal minority aside, I suspect many (most?) in the BSD camp do not share your view.
Theo is right on this one. His argument is:
When a BSD/GPL code is passed along, it will be forever dual-licensed because the GPL guarantees it:
"if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
The key words being "all the rights". Including the rights that you get by way of the BSD license. He. He. That is to say, if you make the option of using the BSD license, well, you can do anything you want with the code, but, if you want to make the option of using the GPL license (and the kernel must make that option), you must pass along both options to those whom you distribute it to. Nice, uh?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
So I release all my code under the BSD license, specifically because I don't expect or demand patches sent back to me. I don't release it, and then get pissy if people don't send stuff back. I just write it and hope it helps.
If I wanted a license where people couldn't "steal my code", I'd have chosen GPL. That your code may be "stolen" is not a bug, it's a feature of BSD. Theo et al shouldn't be annoyed that someone is actually taking the license at its word.
The license they use does NOT enforce sharing. But they believe that people OUGHT to share. So, when someone doesn't share (for example by adding GPL components) they try to use insults, blackmail and bad PR to force them to share. It is exactly like Theo did over openSSH. Does no-one remember the bullying that Theo tried to get money and equipment out of users of openSSH? http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550 They were low on funds, so he decided that anyone who uses the FREE software they made OUGHT to donate to openBSD. This behaviour is very like the behaviour of those who own MP3 patents - let it go out and become the standard THEN hit everyone up for cash. The only difference is that the BSD license means no-one is FORCED to pay, they just get slagged off by Theo.
I don't get what all the fuss is about. Linux folks can add stuff to BSD code and then license the changes under the GPL, and include it in the source. The original code remains BSD licensed and must retain the copyright notice, because the license says so. What's hard to comprehend?
The situation is this:
The code in question had the BSD license included, plus the author (copyright holder) added a condition saying that "alternatively," the GPL could be used.
One is therefore free to select the alternate license and ignore the BSD license, and that includes the part about keeping it around.
Now, and this is key, the author has every right to put in something which says "chose either for yourself, but keep both in what you pass on." He didn't, and the only requirement to keep the BSD license is found within the BSD license itself. It is well known that there are multiple ways in which the BSD and GPL licenses clash - you can only have an "either/or" license, not a "both" license. It's simply stupid to try and claim that selective clauses of one license apply when the other license is chosen to be used.
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Since the changes to the path do not constitute a new derivative work as defined by copyright law it doesn't not become copyrightable when merged with the original work. IF the original work is dual licensed with BSD and GPL then changes must be shared as required by GPL. Since the work doesn't qualify as a new derived work as defined by copyright law the changes fall in a gray area where the courts would side with the original authors. Thus the new work is best considered a gift to the original authors and is under their copyright and license or licenses. Since their original work is under the BSD license the changes must be published under the BSD license and the GPL license simultaneously. I checked this with a lawyer and he suggests that rather than fight it in court that the authors of the new "patch" or change additions simply gift their copyrighted work to the original authors. Remember that copyright law has teeth in these matters; it's not just three or four paragraphs in the BSD license, it's the entire copyright laws and court decisions in your country that make the difference and that apply here.
Once the facts have been discovered in the case of the BSD Driver Linux Patch without BSD license mentioned escapade we'll know better how the cookie crumbles in this case.
Remember your code isn't copyrightable when merged with another's original work unless you have significant changes (in volume) or you alter the code so that it is different enough to be classified as a derivative work by copyright laws. This has significant implications for all software projects, open, free or closed. It also has serious issues and implications for forks of open or free software projects no matter which license is involved. Furthermore the original authors are always in bed with you as long as you have any portion of their code in your system beyond fair use. Be warned that they may have more rights in your derived work than you can even imagine now.
The BSD people are full of shit. There I said it. I'm tired of all the politeness GPL defenders show to these people. They don't deserve. The BSD exists for one reason and one reason alone. To get Open Source Code into Closed Source Applications. I'm open minded enough to know that *that* isn't always a bad thing. I understand, for instance, why the theora and vorbis codecs use an apeche license. But most of the time the open source community gets nothing from the BSD that the GPL couldn't offer also. If you call yourself an open source developer you have to explain why we need to give up code to proprietary shops, otherwise the only other reason to go with the BSD is to keep open the opportunity to go proprietary. If you want to go proprietary at least have the decency to admit doing so. Saying choose BSD (-style) because "its more free" shows you are full of shit.
But... the future refused to change.
The BSD license does *not* allow you to re-license the whole thing under GPL. BSD code must stay BSD code. And that is exactly what got ignored. ONLY THE AUTHOR HAS THE RIGHT TO RELICENSE.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
...placing restrictions on reuse and redistribution of software is not really *open*?
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Those who write and submit code to the BSD project, do so knowing that the BSD license doesn't require those who use the code to give anything back to the project.
For crying out loud !! Microsoft Windows is even using the BSD TCP/IP stack and I don't see them giving much back to the BSD project.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'm license agnostic, BSD, MIT and (L)GPL are all good licenses where appropriate. A handful of BSD guys are claiming there's a moral obligation to share code while beating up on the GPL that legally enshrines this 'morality'. They're arguing that BSD is more free than the GPL while complaining about the freedom to relicense under GPL. These are simply not rational arguments and I'd sooner defer to Netcraft than engage.
/evil/ GNU toolchain? A veritable "So long and thanks for all the GCC!" while attempting to claim the moral high ground?
The sensible thing to do is to create a separate F/OSS drivers project where all code is dual licensed for mutual benefit. That isn't the message we're getting from the zealots on the BSD side, a vocal minority appear more interested in attacking the GPL, ad-hominem and spreading FUD than in pro-actively fostering cooperation.
What's really going on? Are these few zealots in the BSD camp expecting Microsoft to release it's dev tools so they can finally be rid of the
This whole debate shows that licensing of software is a very shaky legal subject indeed. The whole copyright issue of it is clear - that belongs to the author(s). But books don't get compiled into binaries, and aren't licensed to an unknown group of readers; they're sold as hardcopies and read as-is. The icky thing here is the concept of a license: at best a social contract: a list of conditions of use under which I promise I won't sue you for copyright infringement. At worst completely unenforceable. Because what if my conditions are impossible to meet or inhumane or illegal in themselves ? Did anybody ever stop to consider whether it is at all possible to release something under a dual license ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
bad spelling and catchy subject line don't make a troll
i for one certainly agree with him
Just a quick thought. How is it exactly that GPL hinders code sharing? Isn't the issue that the BSD crowd refuses to use it because they want everything to be BSD-licensed. Couldn't you turn the argument around and say that it's the BSD license who is hindering code sharing? //fatal
Is there an alternative to an MIT or BSD license that does the same thing, but doesn't allow GPL people to use it? I release just about everything I do under the MIT license, but I'd consider a license that prohibits GPL people from using it after see some of the BSD hate in these comments and over at kernel trap.
This was an error which was corrected. The patch never was applied. So where is your problem? Why are Theo and his disciples still spreading FUD? Envy if you ask me...
The problem is more of a morality issue than anything else. GPL followers being so overly concerned about having code contributions returned but at the same time taking a shit on the BSD sommunity, thats hipocracy. Sure, the BSD license allows this to happen but still it's not a very nice thing to do.
This appears to be a non-story. BSD is giving away your software with no expectations that you will get it back, improved or anything. It is the GPL that requires those who use your code to provide source with the executable code if it is published by other entities.
The point is that we have the GPL camp and we have the BSD camp. The GPL camp takes code from the BSD camp and the BSD camp is not able to merge those changes back into BSD code. The issue here is not that this is a license violation; it is not. BSD people, like me, want other people to use our code. The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code. Again, I emphasize that this action is not a problem to us; we want it and we expect it. The problem is with the GPL camp saying how they are somehow "more free".
Informative, factual, clear.
The GPLv2 never prevents sharing back with the developer, as long as the developer wishes to release his code under the GPLv2 also.
BSD is the simpler license and does offer more freedom. But, to parapharse Linus, the GPLv2 encourages trust between developers because there is no way for another developer to steal your code if it is licensed under the GPL.
The question is: Is the trust encouragement more important and productive than the freedoms that are lost while using the GPLv2?
Linus seems to think so.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Well yes, this is true, but I don't think that's what the differentiating factor between the GPL and BSD licences is. Both licences ensure that code licensed under them can always be shared. The GPL enforces that derivatives of their code can always be shared, and the BSD licence does not.
The whole point of the BSD licence is to assert your own copyright over your own code, while assuring that it can be shared, and recognising that the author has no rights over others' code, even when that code is a derivative. Any whinging over the fact that derivative code can't be shared back misses the whole point of the BSD licence when compared with the GPL.
I don't see how source code once licensed under BSD can somehow be made "unfree". Maybe we have to look a bit closer at what's going on.
Let's say we have a developer T, who develops his code on the machine beastie, and wants to release all his source code under the BSD license.
Further we have a developer L, who develops his code on the machine tux, and releases all his source code under the GPL. (Let's ignore reassigning copyright to FSF for now, in some places you can't even do that.)
Last, we have a company M (all developers here do work for hire, so the copyright belongs to M), developing code on the machine mtdoom, not releasing any source code at all, but distributing binaries.
T develops foob.c, L develops foog.c, and M develops foom.c.
case 1) If M wants to use foob.c in his project, he is allowed to do so, provided he acknowledges this use. He is not required to distribute the source, and his own code is not infected with the BSD license. Fine, a copy of foob.c is now found on mtdoom. A discreet notice of the use of foob.c goes into the documentation.
case 2) If M wants to use foog.c in his project, he is allowed to do so, provided he also distributes a copy of the file. Further, his own code must probably also be released with the GPL license. M doesn't want that because of his modus operandi, so effectively he cannot use foog.c. Let's just hope foog.c is not to be found on mtdoom
case 3,4) If L or T want to use foom.c - tough luck. They need to get M to distribute the file under some license they can use. No other way can they legally get a copy of foom.c onto their machines and into their project.
case 5) If L wants to use foob.c in his project, he is allowed to do so. He can redistribute the file freely. No reason why foob.c shouldn't be copied to tux. L can even distribute foob.c as is, as part of his GPLed project. foob.c is now on tux.
case 6) If T wants to use foog.c, he is allowed to do so. But like case 2, depending on various things, he may have to release the rest of his code under GPL as well. T, just like M, doesn't want that, and is thus effectively unable to use foog.c. Of course, a copy still might find it's way onto beastie, but it can not be linked with any of T's own code. T can merely redistribute this code under GPL just like any other friend of L. (This actually applies to case 2 as well.)
So effectively, the only file that could be freely copied everywhere is foob.c. Now what can actually be done to these copies of foob.c?
As mtdoom is a proprietary machine, we can't tell for sure. But for M's own sake, let's hope the license is retained, lest they forget to keep their minuscule obligation to T. M is allowed to modify it of course.
L however, likes to modify foob.c and redistribute the modified foob.c. Again, this is granted. However the license says
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
So L has to leave at least the license text intact if he modifies the file.
The questions that remain are:
can L "infect" foob.c with GPL?
NO! foob.c on beastie cannot be infected and will remain accessible and distributable. However, I don't know if L could slap a GPL onto his copy of foob.c given he did sufficient modification? And would that GPL "override" the BSD license already attached? It would seem certain that it could not _replace_ the BSD license, as that's what allows the use and modifications in the first place!
Particularly relevant for this discussion: let's imagine a hybrid developer H, releasing fooh.c on his machine hoohoo, who for some reason wants to leave the choice of BSD license or GPL up to the licensee. Does it even make any sense, any difference at all, to have a dual license? What would the point be? What does that choice mean? Does it really mean that L can make a copy of fooh.c on tux, and just REMOVE the BSD license and redistribute it under GPL only? Without
Thus, a share-and-share-alike license is effectively preventing two-way sharing.
I don't agree that this is the GPL's fault. The BSD license is not a "share-and-share-alike" license, which is prefectly fine. But it's mutually exclusive to achieve the GPL's goal of "share-and-share-alike" and at the same time dual license it with a "share-and-not-share-back" license, because everyone who didn't want to share back would use the BSD license. It would in essence be just like releasing it under the BSD only.
If you want to make the BSD license viral, then do it. "You need not distribute source. But if you do, it must be licensed under the BSD license". If not, accept that the GPL community will apply new restrictions and that you can't have their code because you refuse to accept code that requires you to "share alike". As long as the BSD people take the position of "If the GPL community shares code with us, we'll give it to any closed source company that asks and they won't need to share back" there can be no other way.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What on earth is this weird concept of "relicensing" all of a sudden? The right to license a work is precisely the right of the copyright holder. The BSD license doesn't talk about transferring any right to relicense, only the right to modify and redistribute, and I am quite sure the GPL is not much different in this regard.
-Lasse
Sounds great, but is he the *only* author of all the code in question? (I have no idea, I'm just asking...). If anyone else contributed BSD any meaningful amount licensed code, you will (ethically, if not legally) need their permission as well. Clearly if Joe writes some code and issued it under a dual-license, and Bob contributed substantial code as well under one of those licenses, I will also need Bob's permission to change the license....
If BSD license prevented you from distributing the software under a different license, it would be the GPL. If the GPL didn't do that, it would be the BSD license. What's the problem?
Step 1) Acquire GPL/BSD fusion source code.
Step 2) Modify a variable name and close the source using the freedoms provided by BSD.
Step 3) Release your wonderful, closed source application as open source under the GPL license.
The GPL has hindered code sharing. Do you remember the Broadcom wireless driver debacle wherein Theo recieved a nasty gram for porting the code to BSD? No, well here goes. Theo recieved a warning from the Linux project maintainers of a Broadcom wireless driver. This was really in poor code-sharing taste and ultimately caused the cancellation of the porting efforts. In the end, both Linux and BSD users lost out. Was OpenBSD really going to profit from it or commercialize it, no! It is simply in the spirit of hardware support. Now, let us look at OpenSSH, a fine product from OpenBSD. Linux and GPL people use it all of the time. I am hard pressed to find a more significant contribution to Linux. After all, OpenSSH is the foundation of secure remote administration, logins, tunnelling, and more. Now, someone tell me what Linux has contributed to BSD of similar significance as I cannot think of any.
How is that hypocracy? Developers who use the GPL do so because they believe that it's prudent to require "contributing back" because otherwise people just take the code and run with it. The developers who use the GPL code for the port do what they think is best. It's pretty arrogant to proclaim that GPL developers should deviate from their license of choice even though the BSD license doesn't require it and BSD license proponents don't miss a chance to rub it in everybody's faces that they are supposedly more "free" because there's no requirement to share back.
If I recall correctly, the flap is all about some BSD code that is in Linux. The problem here is that the original author of the code seems to have submitted the same code to both projects. Theo being Theo, he claims total ownership of everything. The guy is known to be a total head case.
Upshot here is that the code in question is just dual licensed.
This whole thing is a non-issue. If he had just contacted the author instead of shooting off his mouth, this would never have happened.
Of course, I may be wrong. I haven't contacted the original author either. Hopefully the kernel guys have.
Enjoy the fireworks.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Seriously. how does the GPL lock anyone out of using the code?
If you're using it in an open-source project, use it; you're giving the source away anyway. Enjoy the (percieved) protection it gives you.
If you're using it in-house, use it; you're not distributing it, so you aren't affected by the 'must provide the source' clause. Enjoy the free code.
If you're using it in a closed-source project, use it; please, however, consider opening the source, at least to that parts of your app that touch the GPL code you are using. You probably don't care about anyone else's license anyway.
If you're using a license that allows the code to be modified, without those modifications being made public, and have included the option of removing that license from your code, don't whine; though you explicitly allowed it, we worked with you to 'fix' it because we're, generally, a helpful community. We might not do so next time if you're going to whine, carry on and generally try to make things hard for us either way.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I furthermore propose that he should change his Slashdot username to something implying great enmity to nails.
Besides the fact that this supposed conflict seems to be just the thing a proprietary licensing company would do to try and degenerate, create conflict within open licenses in such a manner that would allow them to steal......
The hard truth is simply this.
The BSD License allows for the very thing this FUD conflict is supposed to be about.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE BACK WHEN USING THE BSD LICENSE! Does everyone understand that?
If so then what the fu& is this FUD really all about?
It is not the fault of GPL or any other license that this manifestation of the BSD License not only creates the
possibility of not giving back but also is the source for allowing the possibility of such FUD to be fabricated.
If the BSD devs don't like the "not sharing part of their own license" then they should change their license.
For the supposed problem is created by the BSD license.
If you really want to compare legal documents and consider the extreamism that can be supported by such documents, perhaps you should look at the licensings of those who are really the responsible parities in promoting this FUD.
Fu&'in read the Proprietary software Licensing of those who have been abusive to developers and consumers and even legally shown to be criminal in the court of law with their activity.
Have people forgotten why such licensings as the BSD and GPL came about?
On another note, perhaps as an analogy or metaphor, have Americans forgotten what the declairation of Independance reads or what teh constitution reads?
Rather than spculate as to who might break laws tomorrow, how about looking at who is breaking them now! And who has a history of law breaking.
Its a legal issue and its solved. Now goaway with your petty morals. Clearly, GPL proponents do not agree with the philosophy behind the BSD and OpenBSD is political-free so this hoompha isn't necessary.
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
>>
1. Developer A writes some code for OpenBSD (or whatever)
2. Developer B says "that's cool, I wish Linux had that"
3. Developer B ports developer A's code to Linux
4. Developer B then starts improving on A's code
>>
I think it's ABCBA, or ABCAB -- writing the code, implementing it and code review means 3 parties.
>>However, developer B doesn't want to release his changes under the BSD license, so the improved version goes out GPL-only. Developer A says "hey, wait, that sucks", because now he can't incorporate those changes back into OpenBSD, which does (I assume) have a policy that all code must be BSD-licensed.
Single-use licensing can work with Community Centric Licensing which AFAIK imports strengths of reusing/sharing/replicating source code. We don't have CCL yet. Are not BSD and GPL the same except the latter requires source code inclusion?
In reply to deviate_this ( first response to original ):
>> So how do you claim the moral high ground when you just took someone else's project and forked it so that they can't use it the way they originally intended?
Derivative works stay in the public domain and are subject to this. Community and collaborative are co-existing, but certainly universal, enterprise fixated licensing can make a difference.
Quick notes on moving past single-user EULA licensing:
emphasis on community means truly shared
limited emphasis on collaboration: shared but truly unique
Without specifying the legal jurisdiction (which country's copyright laws) this thread is just legal babble. Under U.S. law the GPL is a preempted (17 USC 301(a)) copyright contract that attempts to regulate "all third parties" sec. 106 rights. That is why the FSF will never risk a direct U.S. court interpretation of the GPL. The Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 3:06-cv-01905 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007) decision is only the opening salvo in the death of open source dreams for "free" software.
The GPL doesn't attempt to regulate third parties; only those engaged in licensed distribution. The fact that licensed distribution ensures rights for third parties is irrelevant. The Jacobsen v. Katzer case involves the artistic license and is unlikely to impact a courts interpretation of a less broad license such as the GPL.
Is the grass green on your planet?
No, the GPL doesn't allow you to remove the BSD clause.
For the recipients of your derivative programs's source code to be allowed to use, distribute or modify the program, they must have two licenses:
You cannot remove the BSD license from a piece of code you don't own simply because you don't own that code, and therefore, you don't have the right to license people to use that code. You have the right to use, modify and distribute the code to anybody from any purpose, but the license that allows you to do so, and that further confers your recipients the same right, comes from the authors of the original software, not from you. The only thing you own are your modifications.
The problem with what you say should be clear now: what they received isn't "your code." They received a derivative work that you produced by taking the original authors' BSD-licensed work, and making GPL-licensed additions and/or modifications. Your GPL license doesn't apply to any part of the derived work that comes from the original authors, and there is nothing you can do to make it so. Anybody who takes your source file and can identify which parts of it come from the original, BSD-licensed work, can take those parts and use, modify and redistribute them under the terms of the BSD license. The only thing you've accomplished by adding a GPL license is to license the parts of the new work that you own--your modifications.
A big misconception here is that people seem to think that licenses apply to the whole files. Not quite. A license is a permission from the author of a work that allows others to do certain things with that work. Copyrighted "works" and a source code files don't correspond to each other in a one-to-one fashion. A single source file can consist of multiple works, licensed by different people under different licenses at different times. The key thing is that to use a source file you are given, you must have a license to use every work that the file comprises in the manner that you want to use it.
Are you adequate?
In general, I agree with your charaterization of the GPL2 and the BSDL. Furthermore I would add that well-run BSDL projects have their own economic mechanisms of ensuring contributions (i.e. you want the latest new code, you had better give back so you aren't stuch spending a lot of developer time porting your code between versions). In fast-paced development projects under BSDL (Apache, PostgreSQL), you either give back or you fork, or you get dragged down by unnecessary efforts.
At the same time, I have a pretty major concern about the GPL3. If you read section 7, this grants *distributors* (i.e. people who have no copyright claim to the software) the right to remove permissions which exist beyond those of the base GPL3 license. I expect this to actually make it harder to share code not only between GPL projects and those under other licenses, but also between projects governed under the GPL3 because anyone can drop a linking exception, an additional license, etc. However, it is not clear how this works legally. Is this an exception to the prohibition on sublicensing? Is it interfering with a contract to which one is merely a third party? What is the legal effect? Although I believe have answers which provide *me* a safe interpretation of the license, I do not believe that the license is clear enough to ensure that everyone will come to the same understanding of it.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Porting a wireless driver from OpenBSD to Windows is just like copying code ;-)
Note however that nothing prevents the OpenBSD driver developer from reading the code, thinking about it, coming back, and ading his own versions of the improvements. Or safer yet, askign someone *else* to read the code, provide a specification of the algorythm, an then reimplementing it since the algorythm itself is not subject to copyright protection (IANAL, but read the basic analysis in Gates v. Bando as to what is subject to copyright protection-- although this is just a 10th Circuit appeals case, that part is pretty much common across the board at least in the US and probably in most Bern Convention signatories).
Now, this is *exactly what* BSDL developers should be doing. First this forces the GPL developers to either give back or totally fork (otherwise, they have to keep porting changesets between versions and determining which changes are no longer required, probably by hand). It is exactly in the spirit of well-run BSDL projects as well.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
GPL blowhards like Eben Moglen and Bruce Perens have forever claimed the GPL is a "license not a contract". The Jacobsen decision firmly rebuts that claim. A recursive copyright license (see GPL sec. 2(b)) such as the GPL absolutely *does* attempt to bind all third parties who use the licensed code. The GPL is DOA in any U.S. Federal Court.
I am considering choosing the BSDL for any future large projects on the idea that one cannot compete with Free (both senses). However, if someone started usng my code in GPL projects and not giving back, (if we wanted it back) I would see if anyone in the community was willing to do an analysis of those changes so we could implement them ourselves. This would probably have two impacts:
1) Force those using our code to either give back or fork, and
2) Driving up the costs of code maintenance for those who don't want to make that choice.
Note that the same basic approach goes to proprietary users as well. Analyze their features and functionality, re-implement, and drive up the costs of development for them if they don't give back.
Note, however, this does not prevent people from adding components in whatever licenses they want for things we don't want. These could be sold with EULAs, incorporated into GPL projects, or whatever.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..."
So, you do not get to strip the license, although you can use and produce binaries with it.
That's the issue: you can't strip the license. By removing the BSD license, the linux people are obliterating the license. As Theo says, licenses are granted to you.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
But didn't the "Alternatively..." part refer to the whole file? If it did, then it's not slapping GPL on BSD but choosing the one or the other, and BSD doesn't ever come into force for the file in question. As for the content that was also available as BSD (the one without GPL-only mods), it still is - you just take it from the dual-licensed parent copy (sounds stupid due to the fact that the copies may not differ at all, but still). Or, for that matter, you can take it from the GPL copy, too, provided you know exactly which content that was - it doesn't matter in practice anyway.
Although I suspect you are a troll, you do have a point in this particular post.
Before I begin, IANAL.....
If you read the GPL2 and 3, they both read like contracts. There are specific obligations which are asked in return for certain rights (for example, any derivative works must use the same license). If this sounds wrong, note that there are a lot of people who want to argue for specific performance in GPL violation cases (asking the court to make the other party comply with the GPL by releasing their own copyrighted code elements...). If the GPL did not have contractual elements, these arguments would be simply absurd.
However, I would suggest that the vast majority of the people who redistribute software as permitted by the GPL do so as if it were a bare license for redistribution of the original work verbatim including the license and everything else necessary to comply.
My own lay analysis of the GPL is:
1) Using the software, no contract is formed (no contract, in US, the Copyright Act allows for this without permission provided that one legitimately owns the copy of the software).
2) Redistributing verbatim source packages as released by the developer, no contract is formed (bare license).
3) Creating a derivative work or redistributing binary packages, a contract is formed.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Hmm... IANAL though.
The case you describe was based largely on De Forest.
In De Forest, you had a contract between De Forest and AT&T, which (among other things) allowed AT&T to produce goods for the US Government. This provided an implied patent sublicense for AT&T to allow the government to make use of the products they created. You also had another contract between AT&T and the US government during the war where AT&T agreed to waive injunctive relief over sublicense violations in exchange for monetary compensation later. Thus it is very difficult to see how one could address the related patent issues under anything *other* than breach of contract.
The Artistic License also provides certain obligations on modification. Thus when you change the files you are entering into a contract. The GPL is no different.
I have no idea why people think this makes the GPL void or DOA, however. Unlike the GP, I don't honestly understand the argument that just because the GPL is a contract it is somehow void. The GPL does seem to create contracts on certain kinds of distribution and on modification. (The GPLv3 probably creates a contract in more forms of redistribution than is clear in v2.) But the main issue is that this creates a contract itself and if this is breached, one is entitled to some sort of reasonable relief. And since the contract is now terminated, redistribution rights cease.
Sure, I have my issues with the GPL3, but....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Thank you for saying it. My view is similar. If the guy released it under the BSD license then it should stay BSD even after you added your changes. If you don't want to use the BSD license then WRITE THE DAMN THING YOURSELF and it better be unique, then you can put it under whatever license you like. Neither the BSD or the GPL permit stealing. Theo maybe an active volcano but at least when he's erupting you have an idea somethings going on that should be looked at just to be sure versus the normal silence when potentially bad things happen.
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code. If you redistribute BSD source code - an action which, unlike GPL source code, isn't mandatory - you MUST redistribute it with BSD license. You can't redistribute BSD licensed source under GPL (...)
Let's put it this way: once the BSD code comes in contact with the GPL (throught dual-licensing BSD+GPL) the GPL must retain the BSD license (*) From that point on, all code can be incorporated into proprietary code, but all code can be also be virally copied and replicated through the GPL license which must, from this point on, retain the BSD license. The process repeats itself non-stop.
This means the BSD code has injected itself in all codes of life. The BSD code enters the germ line.
------
(*) Because, as I've said in another post, the BSD license does not license the BSD license (which would be a legal contradiction) but licenses the source code.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Nope! WRONG!
Stripping the license and attributions from the code is NOT using the BSD license in the way it was intended.
Thanks for your lack of comprehension. NEXT!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Not quite.
I have zero problem with changes being GPL'ed. But the remainder of the code should still carry the BSD attributions.
Just be prepared to continue adjusting your patch for subsequent versions or forking the code. Either way, you still retain the BSD attributions for the code you didn't write.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hmmmm...I wouldn't think of this as news. Myself and probably 90% of all Slashdot readers knew this, so I'm not sure why the summary is written like it's *gasp* ZOMG some big shock that the 2 licenses don't allow 2 way sharing.
Now, could someone help me out in explaining why this is any worse than BSD code that is placed into proprietary software, which COMPLETELY cuts off access for the BSD licensed code? I mean, isn't the entire point of the BSD license to explicitly allow this sort of thing?
You shouldn't license your code under a "Do whatever the fuck you want with it" license and then whine and bellyache when people do just that.
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
The GPL enforces code sharing, while the BSD license codifies how the code will be given away. According to the author of the original code, the code was given away correctly. Any problems with the above can be settled by choosing your license wisely. Nothing else to see here, move along.
Epsillon, since you post at 2, can you ask to mod up hempdog's post under yours, too? It explains what this is all about, really. In all fairness :-)
This whole issue -- which Theo didn't put too well -- is about stripping the BSDL off Reyk's code in order to be able to relicense the driver as GPL. (BSDL forbids the relicensing of the code -- it's about the only requirement of the BSDL, and a GPL-compatible requirement at that.) Sam's code is not at all the hot potato here!
I'll rehash it so I get modded troll again.
Propietary License:- Maximizes control
- Easier to get a living of it
GPL style license(anyone that protects the 4 freedoms):- Preserves freedom of developers and users for this and all future generations
- Facilitates a community driven approach to software development
- Provides security through transparency
- Provides interoperability almost for free
- Promotes the adoption of open source licenses
BSD style license:- Preserves freedom of developers and users for the first generation only
- Facilitates a community driven approach to software development
- Provides security through transparency
- Provides interoperability almost for free
- Promotes the adoption of open source code
- Allows the option of going closed source
Reasons to choose BSD style licenses over GPL style:Conclusion:
BSD style licenses offer only questionable value to the open source community but is always beneficial to the proprietary world
Conclusion of the conclusion:
Choosing a BSD style license over a GPL style license means not caring about user freedoms unless a good explanation is presented
Conclusion of the conclusion of the conclusion:
Anyone who says the BSD is more free then the GPL is full of shit.
But... the future refused to change.
Through the use of the GPL, the FSF redefines "Free" by imposing various restrictions (if you use this code, then you must ...). How is that "Free"?
And before you flame me for being anti-GPL, I have released a lot of work under GPL. I think the GPL is very beneficial, but that does not mean I have to drink the kool-aid.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think there is a simple solution for people in the BSD camp who, like me, is disturbed by this story. Put the following text (or something similar) in your license file:
"The original author of this work requests that any useful modifications or extensions also be licensed under the BSD License."
After all, I think everyone who writes open source code does so with the hope and expectation that people who modify or extend it will share back, but unlike the GPL camp, some of us don't want to wield a big legal stick and say "share back or else".
once the BSD code comes in contact with the GPL (throught dual-licensing BSD+GPL) the GPL must retain the BSD license
Wrong.
It seem that you don't understand the concept of dual licensing at all, and so your flawed interpretation has made you come up with an odd mixture of both licenses.
Dual licensing doesn't mean that the terms of BOTH licenses must be accepted. It means that you have the choice of accepting one license or the other license, individually. If you accept one, you don't have to accept the other.
If the license which you have accepted is the GPL, then what the BSD license says is totally immaterial to you --- it doesn't operate. You can now do anything that the GPL allows you to do, and that certainly includes being allowed to strip out the inactive and totally superfluous BSD license.
If you wanted the BSD license to continue to hold, you shouldn't have dual licensed the code. Dual licensing only makes sense when you DON'T CARE if one of the two licenses gets lost when a developer chooses to accept the other one only.
I know it's been said here a million times in this discussion.
But.
If you license your code under the BSD license, *you don't give a fuck what happens with your code.* Otherwise, you wouldn't license it under the BSD license, would you?
You don't care if a big corporation takes your code and sells it as part of their own multi-billion-dollar product. You don't care if I print it to toilet paper and use it wipe my ass while singing along with Britney to, "Oops, I Did it Again." The point is, you licensed it under the BSD license, which means you might as well have put it in the public domain.
If you *really* cared how people used your code, you would've used the GPL, which offers restrictions, meaning the code isn't as free (though I note I can still use it while belting out a chorus of "I'm a Slave 4 U").
So, why is this on Slashdot? Again?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You're right. It's about the open hardware abstraction layer code, which replaces the ath_hal still used in FreeBSD. Hmm, seems I was wrong. Reyk's code isn't dual licensed, which makes for a completely different story. Apologies to Theo.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. I can take BSD code and make it proprietary and not even tell the original author.
But if I use this piece of code (Dual Licensed) you think I am obligated to share it with the OpenBSD guys? Hmmmm.
Lemme google for a sec......... Ok.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Were these conditions met? Yep. The way I see it you have two choices.
F Off, or Contact the author of modified code and ask for permission to use in openBSD code. Note, The author of modified code has the right to say no, the code is GPL only.
These semi-bi-annual rants kinda make me want to release a complete dupe OS based on openBSD with all the code GPL'd. GNBSD (GNBSDs not BSD) Who's with me?
Seriously, I've never seen anyone outside of Microsoft so Anti-GPL.
You know, Theo, There is a license available to meet your share and share alike requirements. I think its called the General Public License http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html or something, by some crazy hippie guy who believes software should be freely distributed, shared, and modified.
Of course he's on the fringe and nobody would use software under those conditions. I mean how are we to make money with a scheme like that?
Surely if it worked, I'm sure major Corporations like IBM, SUN, and others would use it almost exclusively right?
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
The GPL people sure complained about Tivo exploiting a loophole in their license, so it isn't just whether or not a license technically allows something (at least when the GPL babies are the ones getting 'hurt')--it is that you are decent person and you aren't trying dick over some guy that wrote something just because you technically can.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
IANAL....
Theo should be looking at ways of bringing the improvements back. Open source projects can and Ibelieve should do clean-room re-implementations of GPL change-sets. The way this works is:
1) Person A does a diff of the two versions, reads them side-by-side, and documents the changes.
2) Person A sends the document which contains no code to the project email list.
3) Debate occurs over the best way to do things involving any number of people.
4) Person B Implements a similar idea but somewhat different and incompatible with the GPL version (simply due to the fact that the same code is likely altered, and that things are done a bit differently).
This has the effect of creating a comparable but non-compatible changeset in the code. The individual who made the GPL changes now cannot make further changes to the new version without either scrapping his changes or trying to port the differences between the versions (which is suddenly a lot harder and more labor intensive). This way, BSDL coders can punish those who do not want to give back economically.
While arguing about morality here wouldn't be great, nothing keeps BSDL coders from forcing others to give back or waste time/effort/money maintaining an increasingly complex changeset between versions.
In the BSDL, freedom is power because it is valuable. It is good to maximize the use of that freedom to ensure that people cannot easily compete with the original project.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Like anyone knows, this all charade originated from a patch submission and not from anything official, regardless of it I find it very odd that the BSD license supporters are making such a big deal of this thing, if you don't want the rest of the world to do whatever they want with your code, then BSD is NOT the license for you.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I have been around GPL an BSDL projects for a long time. I dont care about license wars but I will say this-- any community is capable of defending itself if it is strong. IANAL, and in cases like this it is probably a good idea to have legal advice.
In BSDL projects, you have no legal recourses, but you do have economic ones such as:
1) Create similar changes embodying the same ideas but implemented using different code. Clean-room the changes if necessary. If they don't want to give you the changes, you can drive up the cost of using your code and force them to actually fork or give back.
2) Recruit more talent.
3) Lower the barrier of entry to participate.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project? The only difference here is that the BSD camp seems to see GPL'd modification as some kind of bait-and-hook. But the GPL camp is giving back. Their just not doing it in a way that suits *you*. Ironically it would be much less an issue if they simple took the code and where never seen or heard from again. Instead they share the changes, all be it these changes are under the terms of a different license. You still gain in a socialistic sense. You gain in the insight into how or what changes they've made. And if you aren't strung to one particular license (which we are, on both sides often) then you simply get the benefit of the new code.
And lets not pretend for a second that the ports collection doesn't exist. We both benefit from our relationship. So who benefits from this silly contention?
Quack, quack.
You can see the changes? Because I could very well take the same code and wrap it into a proprietary package. Maybe make a fortune as I extend the code. But as we all know that's the beauty of the BSD type license: freedom. So the GPL coders take the same code, extend it to suit their needs and offer it to everyone. Only under a license they believe in. And you feel slighted.
Quack, quack.
What he is saying is not relevant. What matters is the actual license he released his work under. He may believe that it means what he says now, but unless he in fact explicitly granted the licensee the right to relicense the work under either license, all a licensee can do is to redistribute the work under the same (dual) license.
-Lasse
Would kind of kill the point. This is *at worse* a forking issue. One codebase is BSD. Will always be. Can always be. The other is licensed in a way requiring it be open. You now (regardless of what happens) have two code bases. If you don't like the terms of the extended GPL'd code (which is fine not to) you ignore it. Continue work. Hell, at least you can see what they've done. If the code were to be wrapped into a Redmond product you'd get less. This is a silly dispute. Viral implies that it takes over. Infects the host. But that's pretty misleading. Essentially it divides the code. Leaving one perfectly intact, as you wanted it. Altering the other and applying a new license. We should really find a better way to describe the process, I can viral as salacious and very useful for FUD. But it's perfectly inaccurate. Nothing's lost and if you reject it nothings gained. What's so complicated about that.
Quack, quack.
The GPL people aren't exploiting a loophole. They do exactly what the GPL and BSD licenses are intended for: They use code that is supposed to be used as widely as possible, like the BSD license authors intended, and they protect their additions from proprietization, as you would expect GPL license proponents to do. License header mishaps aside, this is exactly how I would have expected it. If a BSD license guy is unhappy about not getting anything back, he's using the wrong license. The BSD license is designed to not require reciprocity.
WRONG.
Reyk has copyrights on the work as well; Sam does not speak on Reyk's behalf.
"2) Redistributing verbatim source packages as released by the developer, no contract is formed (bare license)." *** All IP license are contracts under U.S. common law including the unilateral contract that is know as a "bare license".
Use the old, four-clause BSD license. There is no danger of such code being relicensed under the GPL, because the licenses are incompatible. Another (non-comprehensive) solution would be to just add a clause preventing any derivative software from being licensed under the GPL/LGPL, or any other license issued by the FSF.
To be fair, though, if you want to insist on two-way code-sharing, you ought to use a more restrictive license than the BSDL. GPL is one such option, but a more case-specific option would simply be to require any derivative code to be shared with the copyright holder of the original, but not necessarily with anyone else (I'm sure that there is a license which does this already, but I can't remember which one).
I'm quite partial to the BSDL myself (I would even prefer the four-clause version, were it not for the practical problems with it). However, that license simply isn't capable of enforcing two-way sharing - it isn't meant to be. The whole point of the BSDL (likewise the MITL) is to leave the user of the software as free as possible without actually placing the software in the public domain (the point being to prevent plagiarism). This is contrasted against the FSF/GNU ideal of making the code itself as free as possible, even at the expense of the users' freedoms (the point being to enforce code-sharing). It's the difference between preventing theft and enforcing giving.
Is a gift still a "gift" when it's compelled? Is it truly generous to give if you only do so expecting something in return? I certainly don't believe it is, which is why I prefer the BSD license. It's also why I don't like welfare-states. Obviously, though, there are those who believe that if we don't require giving then there won't be enough of it. For those who believe that, there is the GPL (and socialism, if you want). In any case, to complain that the same rule which protects one's own freedom fails to curtail someone else's is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Nice way to break it down. I'm actually having trouble deciding which way to relicense my code - whether BSD or Apache License or a dual licensed (L)GPL and proprietary for commercial reasons.
:)
Thanks for your analogy
so, if the code still contains the BSD license (as it must by the terms of the license), and since the BSD license preceeds the GPL license, surely it superceeds it - thereby nullifying the 'must share' clause of the GPL ?
Mod me flamebait or troll if you must, but the BSD license allows others to take code and use it as they see fit, provided that they include the original creators in the credits, doesn't it? All that's happening here is GPL devs doing what Microsoft, Sun, et. al, have done for years and years. You would have to be an idiot to think this would never happen.
The BSD license, to me, is a wonderful but tragically noble thing, because people will do this to it. Leaving aside questions of who has the moral high ground, the BSD license lets people do this sort of thing. If the BSD people don't like it, they need to change the license, or suck it up. It's probably not fair or right, but the license allows it.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
(...)Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.(...)
(...) Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device (...)
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
So, like I said: the linuxers can't remove the BSD copyright notice, because it says: and, furthermore, if they can't remove and if it's up on some repository (like I said in another post) because it's dual-licensed, then it's visible (see above) and therefore the BSD license, for all practical purposes, takes over the GPL license.
Game over.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
How are they allowed to remove these lines - this is breaking the copyright law itself, not just poor developer/development ethics and morals from the GPL people. Can't these lamers write their own drivers instead of always using other code and not giving credit back where credit is due (hence, the BSD license only request). This sickens me - as a Linux user and developer, Linux and GPL now sickens me to do something so dirty to another FOSS project, yet they happily use OpenSSH... Sickening... Goodbye Linux.
They wish to distribute what they develop under the very unrestrictive BSD license. They can't go using other people's code however unless they get a license for it. The people that wrote the Broadcom wireless driver wished to release it under the GPL. They share it with everyone, the only condition being that improvements must also be shared and that people know it's free and can get the source code if they wish.
Even so, if you have permission to do something unconditionally it doesn't matter on what legal basis this is evaluated.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Are you saying that people who are not competent to enter into contracts cannot, say, redistribute OpenBSD?
I would think that even if you look at bare license as a contract, it is different than other forms of contracts.
Finally I would point out that common law only covers 49 of the states in the US.
IANAL though.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It really doesn't matter. The BSD does not assure that people you distribute derived works too get all the rights you got to the original code. So whether or not it's dual-licensed, you are not required to grant a BSD-style license to derived works.
Technically, you can't remove the BSD license from the file. But it will no longer apply to the modified file. It will still only apply to the original file.
The biggest difference between the BSD and the GPL is that the GPL must apply to all derivative works of GPL'd works. The BSD license does not work that way.
Public domain is the best in *spreading* the freedom. (think of TCP/IP, HTTP/HTML...)
GPL is the best in *protecting* freedom. (think of SCO vs. freedom...)
BSD is the best in *spreading* the freedom where author wants her *name attached* to the free work. (think of XFree86 vs. Xorg...)
The BSD folks have long complained that the GPL was "less free" because the GNU folks wouldn't let people take their precious code in which they had invested blood, sweat and tears, make one tiny change and then lock it up behind some non-free licence. Kinda like saying that the Antebellum North was "less free" than the South because those damn Yankees didn't recognise the right to own slaves.
..... do I get to use Reasonable Force to obtain the Source Code that the copyright holder has kindly informed me I have a right to distribute?
Incidentally, when someone makes a closed-source fork of BSD-licenced software, it's my understanding that the BSD licence still applies to the resulting fork. In other words, I have a theoretical right to distribute the Source Code, even if I was not given a copy of same. So
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You and Theo are disingenuous idiots. First, you make an unsubstantiated claim - '"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL.', then you redefine a term you just pulled from your ass to mean what you want it to mean ("conform"). That's as dishonest as an argument can possibly be. "Alternately" means exactly what it says, it offers an alternative ("The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternative ) What Theo has been "explicit" about means exactly nothing, except to those like yourself who think he's god.
The author specifically gives a choice between licenses, and yes, you can leave out the one you don't choose, because that's exactly what the author said ("distribute under BSD, or alternately GPL") It makes absolutely no sense to give the choice otherwise.
Probably the most well-known difference between the BSD and GPL licenses is that the former allows code to be "locked up" (as into a commercial product) while the latter does not. Someone chosing the alternate licenses terms (GPL) is likely doing so because they want to ensure any future releases containing their contributions remain open. Forcing them to redistribute under BSD does not allow them to achieve that.
Finally, this is the ONLY meaning a BSD/GPL license can have which makes any sense at all. In terms of using (running, copying binaries, etc.) the code, they're functionally the same, AFAIK. They differ significantly only when you change/add source code. Saying that modified code must forever be distributed with both licenses is saying that a modifier has no choice between the licenses, and choice makes no sense for an end user.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
That's the only bit the GP post didn't get. If both the BSD AND the GPL *at the same time* needs to be obeyed when the copyright holder of the code dual licenses it, then the whole work is GPL (the greatest restriction set) with the addition of the BSD license text.
But that's no good, because then Theo couldn't use the code in OpenBSD. So that can't be true.
If it is EITHER license *individually* then you can include the code as GPL, requiring GPLing the complete work but not requiring the BSD license. OR you can include it as a BSD work which means you must keep the license terms (note: do you think that the NT code base has the BSD license text in it?) but doesn't require the source.
Also, think of this, if you had to include the BSD or GPL license, how do you know whether you can include the entire work or not? Additions can be GPL which means the entire work cannot be closed (unlike the BSD) and some additions can be BSD which requires that you include the BSD attribution (unlike the GPL). So which is it? If you had to include the BSD text then you'd need to annotate which lines came from which licensed code.
So it doesn't make sense.
Maybe there needs to be a new version of the BSD that clears up the requirements of people like you and Theo.
PPS doesn't closed source licensing hinder two-way code sharing? But that's been going on forever, so why the fuss when it's GPL? Hence "the thread is trolling".
If you read the whole discussion following the original patch you notice that some people suggest that while most of the code is dual licensed, parts of it may be licensed as GPL only.
This is THE problem: GPL person takes a BSD+GPL dual licensed code as a gift from a BSD person, extends it and releases the extension as GPL only. BSD person, although he gave the great gift of the original code, is locked out of the extension.
In my opinion that is unfair.
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
The original BSD code is still available. That a derived work is GPL only doesn't remove this code or propogate the GPL backward through time and remove the right to use this original code under the BSD license.
So stop whinging.
Atleast Alan Cox can admit to it being bad morals doing what has been done.
http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/07
Why is it then that Saddam had to be forcibly evicted? Are the wetern freedoms merely illusion?
If you are free to live as a free man, but you aren't protected from kidnap, does that mean living free is an illusion if force is used to prevent kidnap and make it real (though useless) if there is no force?
You make no sense.
Oh, and to ask about your other point, how will I get the BSD'd code for Win9x/NT or is it closed by law?
Sam Leffler's code is dual-licensed. Reyk Floeter's isn't.
The issue has been addressed already. That was an unnoticed mistake that was quickly rectified. The parts of the code that were not dual-licensed were treated separately. However there was dual-licensed code there as well, which was re-licensed as GPL. Theo took an issue with this.
...are the reason that no one takes Open Source Community seriously.
It doesn't seem like people are doing new things; they just try to reinvent things that have been done
and produce as much drama as possible in the process.
Every time I see a story like this, I get closer to single booting into Vista.
What do you get when you cross a software developer and a lawyer? There is no punchline - it was rhetorical...
How can you conclude based on the whole message you quote its "bad morals"? If you read and understand his whole quote its quite more complicated than that. Nowhere does he use the word "moral" nor "bad moral". This is just your own interpration of his viewpoint. And, guess what? Your interpretation is worth shit. You're just a whining piece of shit much like Theo. This moral aspect was known for many years. Why rehash it? It won't be effective anyway. Hardly anyone in the GPL camp will agree. If anything, they'll be reminded by software such as WINE. (I am not a GPL proponent, btw.)
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. The GPL isn't a nice license. It's an open license. People seem to get that mixed up. We say the code can be open. We also say that the code must REMAIN open. We watch for violations and we enforce this license. So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code. We aren't saying: hey, I've done this work and you can extend it and use it however you'd like. We are saying we've got this code and we want it to remain open. If you use the code great, but if you take it and benefit from it we expect you to give something (code) back.
...freedom.
And I don't see the point of bringing Richard Stallman into this. There are many people involved in that particular area of open source. Some are aggressively anti-commercial (Richard) and some are not (Linus) and lots in between.
But if you feel so strongly entitled to be somehow compensated for the wonderful work you do (and the BSD community does wonderful work) then maybe the BSD license isn't the right choice. Because the forking via the GPL system is adhering to both the letter and the spirit of the BSD license. Ironically, maybe we appreciate your licenses freedoms a little more sometimes.
Anyway, you willfully give the code away. You seem pretty happy with the system. The GPL camp forcefully opens the code they create. Very different, but we've worked together for years. It's just our license is restrictive and maybe all the beards and the liberal rhetoric throws people off. The only way this can be seen as hypocritical is if you don't really understand the point of the GPL. Both licenses have always been quite clear about their goals.
And your last line makes it clear you still aren't understanding. Maybe not even really interested in understanding (I won't blame you, it's political and polarizing). No GPL developer has ever taken BSD code and made it unavailable. It simply can not be done. The changes however can be made unavailable. The BSD license allows for this. The GPL does not. So it's not only our right to pursue GPL violations, it's our responsibility. That's the very core of the ethos behind the GPL. As BSD's is
Quack, quack.
A simple test:
1. What is mine is yours.
2. What is yours is mine.
If you think 1. and 2. are equal use the GPL, else BSDL.
So, yeah, I can tell you you can argue with me, and I can tell you your arguments are full of hot air.
In the case of BSD, there is an implicit element of the contract that bean-counters want to gloss over:
First is the moral obligation. Call it karma. People should show their appreciation for value received in ways that they can. Just because the license does not specify money or code or hardware or word-of-mouth advertizing in some specific forum, does not mean that it is moral or ethical to take and not give back.
Second is one of the ways that the karma comes back to you quickly, what is sometimes called enlightened self-interest. If you do not give back, all sorts of bad things happen. The project founders a bit and you can't get updates when you need them. Your unpublished custom code does not get the advantage of the many eyes phenomon. Maybe you want help down the road, but the project members are not happy that you took and didn't give back, so they refuse to accept your code when you finally do submit it, or maybe make you jump through lots of hoops first, things like showing lots of records of test design and implementation, cleaning up the code formatting and comments, etc.
The GPL is an expedient. Even RMS acknowledges that. All the legal code that tells you you have to give back is necessitated by people who understand neither moral obligation nor enlightened self-interest.
The BSD copyright notice is something of an assertion that the author would rather let people be ignorant, anti-social, and mis-guidedly selfish if they insist, along with something of a statement of trust. But using it, or a similar notice, does not preclude an author from telling people that their selfishness is stupid.
joudanzuki