Slashdot Mirror
Feature:GPL vs BSD
The following was written by Slashdot reader Joe Drew
The GPL vs the BSD License: A GPL advocate's perspectiveRecently, there has been a lot of anti-GPL sentiment in the BSD camps. A cynic would say that they are simply jealous over the GPL's (and Linux') success; however, with a careful examination of reality one notices that the BSD license is no less, perhaps more successful than the GPL, and the BSD variants are thriving in their own niches. So why the anti-GPL sentiment? Personally, I believe it's two things.
- BSD advocates are maybe just a little, tiny bit bitter over the fact that Linux is perceived to be more successful than BSD. Everyone with his head screwed on straight knows that neither of these two factions are going away, but nonetheless, there may be some resentment there. By creating awareness of their OSen, they can draw attention to it.
- Some BSD advocates mistake the anti-proprietary slant to the GPL as pro-communist or anti-capitalist, both of which are blatantly foolish and incorrect.
The GPL exists because Richard Stallman, rms, wanted to ensure the freedom of software forever. Free Software, of all its types, thrived then and thrives now; however, the GPL is one of the only licenses which guarantees that Free Software cannot become non-Free. This doesn't mean that money can't exchange hands over Free Software, only that it can't become proprietary.
When using the BSD license, your software is just as Free as when you use the GPL. However, a company can take your code, incorporate it into its own proprietary product, and (depending on the type of BSD license, with or without advertising clause) you can receive no compensation for your work, perhaps not even credit. If that's exactly what you want, then the BSD license is for you. However, it seems just a little bit dangerous for a lot of Free Software authors.
This isn't possible with the GPL. It's always there, blatantly in your face, telling you ``You may not use this code in proprietary ventures.'' If a company takes your work, repackages it and sells the repackaging and service for it, your code is still available. It isn't legally permissible for them to take your code, incorporate it into another product and sell that product.
The BSD license is a fine license. It does exactly what it's meant to do, which is get the software out there. For a lot of Free Software authors, that's exactly what they want. However, for some people, that's not good enough -- they want to give everyone the freedom to do with the code what they will, but they don't want to give people the right to make the code proprietary.
The GPL is very popular, and very effective, because it protects people's Free Software, while still allowing them the freedom to do with it essentially whatever they want. Many people make a living selling and creating Free Software; this number will only increase as its benefits become more publicised and well-known.
The bottom line is, the GPL is not anti-commercial or anti- capitalistic; it is only anti-proprietary. The BSD license, on the other hand, is very unrestrictive, and allows proprietary knockoffs. Which you choose depends on what you need and what you value. There's nothing more to it than that.
all that was said here has the best ending
The bottom line is, the GPL is not anti-commercial or anti- capitalistic; it is only anti-proprietary. The BSD license, on the other hand, is very unrestrictive, and allows proprietary knockoffs. Which you choose depends on what you need and what you value. There's nothing more to it than that
and I agree. GPL protects source from becoming proprierary, hence its restrictive for all of poeple who would like to create proprierary stuff.
Sometimes I wander if its all the PHBs who say that BSD is better cause they get free stuff without rewarding anyone... Sometimes I think that its the big corporations that made BSD and they laugh at us, but now we got GPL, and they are scared.. Uhm.. I guess I should lay off the coke...
Welll I didn't know that I was a BSD fan... now I do...
:u)
Thanks for clearing that up...
I'll probably install NetBSD now...
"The *real* disagreement between the two camps is over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing."
Depends on the intent of the beneficiary.
BTW:LGPL helps a bit with the co-exsistance of proprietary and GPL code.
that's exactly the key point:
" it is restrictive for all of people who would like to create proprietary stuff."
So, since creating proprietary stuff is restrictive itself (it restricts the freedom of free reuse and distribution), the point of GPL is to restrict the restriction.
I have strong opinions against something I need a lawyer for to understand fully.
Regards, Marc
The point is that the GPL is like humanity: humans
are free, but not so free to choose not being free. You are a slave of your own freedom.
BSD allows you to become a slave, if you want to. GPL does not. Whether this is desirable or not... much philosophy involved here...
Good god man... I'm so tired of hearing you bitch and complain. No, not the slashdot community, you. Every almost post you make you bitch, moan, complain, or insult the slashdot community.
If you don't like it here, don't come. If you don't like the articles, don't read them. But none of us want to listen to your complaning. If you want to post, try adding something to the conversation.
This goes for everyone out there. Quit your moaning, griping, or complaining. If you're upset that some article was on another news site an hour before it was here, then fscking submit it yourself. This is one of the best sites on the internet. Get over it.
-Anony moose
We also are not free to go and shoot anybody whose face we don't like. Complete freedom is.. not as good as it sounds. I vote for GPL.
- Rainy
Another reason a lot of people using the original BSD license don't like people using the GPL is because the do not want to be reminded of the
serious problems the advertising clause causes.
And people advocating the GPL mostly take their freedom very serious and see this as an added restricting on the flow of free software.
Read the article The BSD License Problem for a good explanation.
Although most modern BSD licenses don't use the advertising clause (Xfree, FreeBSD, W3C, etc.) there is still software out their that does use it.
Ok, I was wondering about this. Since I can supposedly do anything I want with BSD code (at least the stuff without the advertizing clause), could I take the code that someone else wrote and re-release it under the GPL to link it with originally GPL'd code?
You remind me a lot of the lusers who used to hang around on BBS's just to rant and rave in the message bases. Usually a 14-16 year old with nothing to do with school out for the summer. You've simply moved from what used to be dial up boards to web based "BBS's". Grow up a bit and stop your bitching.
Derivative 'closed source' work done to extend software covered by a BSD-type license does not preclude people
from cotinuing to use the base code. It does not prevent them from extending the base code in a fully disclosed fashion
if they so choose. Nobody has the base code 'taken away from them' by the closed extension of the code.
Right, what the GPL is really trying to do is not keep the origional code free....but make sure everyone else HAS to do the same....What it really does is try to enslave anyone who might want to enhance that code beyond what it is. Your trying to TAKE someone elses code, not protect your own....
I use BSD, don't like it fine -- USE my code.
Its not a feature, its not even a post, its a link....but I guess it as close to unbiased as /. gets in these topics.
Technically a project with any code borrowed from a GPLed project must be GPLed as well. Hence the quoted statement is correct, and one should not be able to sell any project with GPLed code in it.
I write code cus I happen to like writing code,
not because I want to make a religion out of it.
Because of this I prefer the BSD license over the
GNU license. People say that you don't receive
recognition with the BSD license. The license
requires you to credit those who wrote the code
although admitted it's easier to hide that inside
a proprietary product. Last of all there's the
whole talk of GNU keeping the code free. That's
not true at all either, just because somebody
makes a proprietary product using BSD licensed
code as a base, doesn't mean that you can't use
the original BSD licensed code for free.
You certainly *are* free to shoot anybody you want... *IF* you are willing to face up to the consequences! Just as the previous poster said, you are free to be a slave if you want to... and there are, of course, consequences to that choice too...
But, its your choice. I don't like GPL because it removes my choice on any coding I decide to add or integrate with GPL'd code... True, 99.999% of the time I will probably give the code back to the community... but its *MY* choice, not forced down my throat by GPL.
whoa, you scare me
Bold microsoft, not sharing, no dinner for you tonight
But so many of the BSD-ish licenses don't have the advertisement clause any more, so where are they required to give credit that anybody would notice?
If there wasn't an XEmacs fork then you'd have a really crappy X interface to Emacs (some people :}
might like that, some people don't, what's this I
see? Choice?) If OpenBSD didn't fork from NetBSD
then where do you go to when you're looking for
a secure out of the box unix? Linux?
Look at me! I've a really cool BSDed app, oh no
here comes a big bad corporation to assimilate my
code. Now I'll have to pay them to use the
source I had on my computer when they modified
a copy and made it proprietary. If only I had
stuck with the GPL, RMS is god.
Most extremist weirdos are
Using BSD license, feel intense urge to screw myself over, must get GPL butt plug
No license = fully copyrighted work (i.e. you aren't authorised in theory to use it). However, because it only applies to a GPL work, it could only be distributed under the GPL. So the original code + patch applied will become a work with two authors (the GPL demands that the name of the author of the changes, the date, and a description of the changes are specified so it should be clear). You have to ask the permission to the other author to change the copyright.
I find it funny that because Linux is sucessful, it means that GPL is a good thing. The most successfull open source products are ones that are not GPL. Lets take the examples, Apache, Perl, Python, etc.
Linux while being very good does not have (yet) the market share that either Apache or Perl have. These two products own their respective markets. Why? Simple, I can integrate either Apache or Perl into my product. Is this evil? No. The problem with GPL is that it assumes people want to take a piece of code, compile it and then sell it. That is not the way it works. The way it works is that the source code would be a smaller part of the overall project. Most companies want to add value since copying has a limited life time.
Very commonly people say this is bad since I would take code and not give back code. True, but in cases where the license allowed me to integrate without revealing sources we end up paying donations to the company. And thus far people are happier since money buys food and clothes.
For GPL to survive, it should be modified so that people can integrate the sources into their own. and if they do, then when the company is successful they should donate. A sort of Monte Carlo situation. People pay no taxes in Monte Carlo, but they make regular donations to the kingdom. This way everybody has what they want.
Is there an advantage to this type of license? Yes, because then a small operation can compete with a big operation, without having to invest millions. Once the millions roll in then they can be redistributed. The "donation" money can then be used to buy things for the GPL team. In other words a viable business model is setup where each gets their own freedom.
Christian Gross
Exactly right. Freed software can't be unfreed. The derivations can be restricted, but THAT's should be the free choice of the derivor. GPL takes away that choice.
BSD-type licences seem to be desirable for two reasons, one for self-protection, one for self-promotion. 1) In todays stupid legal environment, most feel the need for clauses in which the licencee agrees not to sue the licensor. 2) Most want to have their name (as if it were unique to them!) forever attached to derivations of their software.
I want to see a licence which only has "1". The software would be extreemly free, only the software user would have some restrictions: to not sue.
> Since I wouldn't own that code, how can I used it in a closed system?
You can't and that's the point. You're not _supposed_ to take other people's GPL code and do that. However, if you need it for a closed system that badly, you can always try paying the people who wrote it to re-license it for you.
Of course if you wrote the whole thing yourself this is not a problem as has been pointed out earlier.
>The fine folks at UC Regents aren't going to >change the BSD license anytime soon. It's been >thru two decades of crucible, they own it, and >nothing we whine or complain about is going to >induce a bunch of bureaucrats to change >something that already does just exactly what >THEY want it to do.
>The GPL, on the other hand, is OURS. Anyone who >cares enough can use it
I don't recall seeing the GPL changing as a result
of all this debate, in fact, it looks fairly much the same as it always has. Explain to me though
(cus I'm an idiot) how the GPL is "OURS" and how
that differs from the BSD License, and how people
who care enough can use it, and how that differs
again from the BSD license.
This is true for big projects, but not necessarily for smaller ones. For instance this is true for emacs, but less true for JED (small emacs clone), for which John Davis seems to be the only author.
Note that since people controls all software, liberation of people means liberation of software.
Just wanna say some of my thoughts about the BSD licensing, and also the GPL thingy. Remember this is an open source community we are talking about here, and if there is ever a killer feature developed on top of a particular software, probably as a function add-on on top of it, we can always hack through the code and reverse engineer that particular feature. I simply don't see a point that the hackers can't do it in this way. Just take an example of icq, the spec of the protocol is not officially available, but so what, we got tonnes of clones available by now. Just because it's open sourced, you could hack the code whenever you want!
But if you definitely need that feature and nobody seems to be interested at that time to develop a similar product, you should consider either have a development team yourself and proceed ahead, or you can pay for that particular product simply because that particular company has devoted time and money for that feature! I should say, if it's easy to get it implemented, it should be around quickly, if no, it's worthwhile to pay for the effort, right? Even if that's proprietary, so what? One can always design something similar and release it under BSD/GPL again, you are welcome to do anything you want here. Remember, it's always the sudden thought and quick response that lead you earn big bucks, and that's exactly the way we do business.
In addition, I would like to mention another point, software under GPL is free if the time you devoted are considered free. It's more like a volunteer project and well, different people have different thoughts too - some simply don't wanna give his time in this way and would like to earn some extra money doing freelance work. The adoption of license should be based on different situation - GPL tends to be more suitable to fun or volunteer projects, and BSD tends to flavor corporate more because of the business strategy(A business gotta be making money to survive afterall) As a matter of fact, take a look of the license taken by large enterprise, do you think that we'll have StarOffice, WordPerfect, DB2, Oracle, Sybase available under the GPL? Get real, people, this will never happen even though they embrace Linux, otherwise their stockholders will kill them!! =)
It's getting long, so I guess I should just stop here. Thanks... just wanna say something for the other side of the camp.
Rgds,
Alvin.
It would seem the basis of this article is:
/.er that the code warrior people have GPL code in their software. What has been done...nothing I am aware of. (not like they have to alert me either))
Anti-capitalism and pro-communist are bad arguments.
Fine, I consider them to be poor arguments also.
HOWEVER, the GPL side spews forth these 2 classics:
1) The code will fork, beware the fork!
2) BSD has the 'advertising clause'
Exactly *HOW* is it bad to give the author(s) of the work the credit s/he (they) want I don't know. You have to 'advertise' the GPL notice in GPLed code also.
As for forking, the Linux camp holds up the GPL as the anti-fork for Linux. The 32 different flavors (FORKS) of Linux help the anti-fork argument how?
It boils down to:
BSD allows the total freedom of the code to be used for whatever purpose you want. If you want to be an "Ass" and lock up your changes, then you can. You decide if you are going to be a 'responsible OpenSource citizen' you can return changes so the whole body of work improves. The licence has faith that you will do what is right.
GPL wants the any code associated with it to be published in the open. The decision of 'responsibility' has been made for you. The licence has no faith in you.
And, given *MY* faith in humans...if someone WANTS your code, they will take it. And do what they want with the code. GPL be damned. BSD be damned. Exactly *HOW* are you going to find out that they 'took your code'?
(Case in point: accusations of a
People say that BSD'd SW can be GPL'd (and have done so I suspect), but the BSD licence terms say that derivations must retain the copyright and licence so attaching a GPL would introduce contradictions that would probably make the nasty parts of the GPL of no effect. I'd like to read more thoughts on this subject.
Note that the BSD does not say that you can distribute derivations of the source code under a different, probably more restrictive, licence. It does say that you can keep the derivation secret and distribute only the binary code. The latter seems to be what gets under the skin of the GNU crowd. Anybody is free to keep modifications of GPL'd code secret, but they may not distribute either the source OR the binary.
Imagine BSD and GPL would be two breed of :)
animals. Both bave pretty different patterns
how they choose their partners to reproduce
(the different licenses
Release BSD and GPL into nature.
I wonder what will happen...
It's an inanimate, non living thing. It can't posses freedom any more than your car, or a rock can. There is no such thing as free software, only software with a license that grants users certain amounts of freedom.
The gpl doesn't liberate software, it liberates people to who use the software, and it does this by restricting their freedom. in effect, it limits the freedom of an individual user in favor of preserving the freedom of use for other users. Whether this is good or bad is up to you.
why should i waste my time with such opinionated
garbage?
And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing
Unix/Linux/BSD
First of all, did you actually check to see if Microsoft "admitted" to anything or not? For example, I found this reference, and there may be others:
Windows NT Server 4.0 Networking Guide, p.781: "Windows Sockets is a programming interface based on the familiar 'socket' interface from the University of California at Berkeley." Sounds like an admission to me.
Second, did you realize that much of the work on BSD Unix (including the TCP/IP stuff) was actually funded by the US Government (as well as various public Universities)? The goal of govt. projects here was to advance computer science in general, and the US Computer Industry in particular. And guess what, for once, they were pretty damn successful.
Now it could be that you would prefer goverment projects to support GPL and GPL only, but that would eqivalent to Microsoft or Apple going to congress to get subsidies. Making BSD Unix out to be a bunch poor starving programmers ripped off by the man is either silly or just plain bizzare. The reality is that the entire point of Berkeley TCP/IP was to assist companies like Microsoft, Sun, and Apple to build a standard networking infrastructure. Which they did.
But you're acting as if the users here have any real impact on the exact wording of the GPL.
The reality is they don't. The GPL is edited under the direction of RMS.
As it stands, the GPL wording hasn't moved much over time either - documents like this aren't supposed to.
I am not certain why the author thinks the comparisons of GPL to Communism is foolish.
It keeps coming up over and over again that everything should be free, that companies should have no ability to make money.
Even more scarey has been the number of times it has been suggested that the Government should fund all software development.
All copyrighted and licenced software is proprietary. The various licences differ in the cost of the licences, where "cost" includes the impact of abiding by the terms of the licences.
The GPL costs very little; the BSD almost nothing. The NPL costs more than both. The source code to M$W2K can be had for a very high cost.
I won't use the GPL because it too much restricts the distribution of derivations of my work. I also don't want to be part of a movement that uses language in such deceitful manners as they are led by RMS to do.
Nothing prevents the original author from releasing the original code under as many different licenses as he wants. Just as nothing, except the massive coordination involved, would stop everyone who ever worked on a GPL project from agreeing to re-license their code under some other license. The person (or people) who own the copyright to the software can, license the software however they like.
you are confusing freedom with anarchy. Freedom is when you allowed to do everything that does not harm anybody, and where crime is forbidden and criminals are prosecuted. Anarchy is where you can do Whatever You Want: steal code and kill people. GPL is Freedom, BSD is Anarchy. Big corporations like Microsoft plain _love_ anarchy, and they are _afraid_ of the freedom the GPL provides ...
Is it not true, for your code to TRULY be GPLed, you have to sign over the rights to the Free Software Foundation?
So therefore arguments saying SGI does X with THIER code, doesn't it STOP being thier code when they sign it over?
SPICE, (circuit simulation software) was originally developed at Berkely, and distributed under a BSD license. Long ago many different proprietary vendors took the code, may their own (signficant yet less than half the actual work) changes and sell the result. This has had several effects. (1) forks such that models, syntax, etc. is somewhat incompatible across version done intentionally to help vendors lock you into their products. (2) loss of interest in the free software community for further the free version(s) of spice (how to keep up with the moving targets of proprietary versions). (3) the original authors of SPICE do not have the benefit of using the proprietary version without paying substantial fees, yet the vendors get the benefits of the original author's work for nothing. This of course if unfair to the "free" contributors. The GPL would have prevented all of these things and I'm quite certain that the improvements and growth of the codebase itself WOULD STILL HAVE HAPPENED - paid for pay corporate interests who needed the simulation capability, but weren't necessarily interested in selling software.
... and under GPL itself.
For me, the problem would be that they are benefitting from code I released freely without contributing anything back.
;)
It is called sharing. You should not EXPECT anything if you were truly sharing with others.
Who needs a license to teach morals? Law and morals don't get along.
BSD allows you to become a slave, if you want to.
Open sharing will not make someone a slave. A better person perhaps.
And I consider the advertising clause arguemtn to be a 'little' argument also.
But, where *IS* the deviding line between a kernel and an operating system? No one *I* know gets a kernel. They get a kernel, a set of tools that run with that kernel, a set of applications for the kernel and tools.
Exactly how useful is the kernel all by iteself? Not much. Its the tools/apps that come with it. You call Linux the kernel. I call Linux the whole package. And I'm right because the value is in the usefulness, and its all thats around the kernal that makes it useful.
If that was not the case, no one would care about word processors for Linux, now would they?
And I don't consider FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD forks. I consider them to be different projects with different goals.
You are actually afraid that Microsoft will take code and IMPROVE it without giving anything back?!?!? I am trying to hold my laughter in; my officemate might think I went crazy.
When was the last time Microsoft really improved anything substantial? Bug fixes do not count.
As a corporate customer of a software product, one of the key considerations is accountability of the vendor. (I know we can argue the praticality of accountability for propriety software, but theoretcially it exists.) Based on my understanding, a vendor would be more accountable for a product based on BSDed code than for one based on GPLed code. In this situation, the BSD license does a better job of protecting me.
Andrew
Sun is the commercial child of the original BSD project. The company formed around Bill Joy and some of the other early Unix guys from Berkeley. They basically continued improving BSD, but kept the new code private so that they could sell it as SunOS.
I'm not saying that is bad -- they certainly had the right to do it. What's more, most of the original BSD authors went to Sun, and thus profitted by the commercialization of their product. We, the users, got a better OS out of the deal, but we paid a price: both in terms of money and freedom. BSD was free, but SunOS is not.
Anyone who chooses the BSD license must realize that their code can be turned into a proprietary product. In terms of the original BSD, it was the authors themselves who profited. However, there is nothing to stop another group from profitting from your code as well.
As for the GPL's role in Linux's success, I believe that it was significant. Who wants to contribute to a product so that someone else can sell it? _I_ don't, and I imagine many Linux hacks are the same way. Perhaps the only solid argument is that Linux is far more popular than the BSD's. And what is the main difference between Linux and, say, FreeBSD? The License.
--AC, because I don't feel like logging in.
And because NT is theirs which many people consider superior (at least in ease of use) to Linux. Lets face it Linux is a pretty crappy Unix as far as Unices go. Microsoft worth billions of dollars has the resources to out do something like Linux easily.
So, you trust this "karma" to keep companies from exploiting your work? I see that as more than idealistic.
Yes: companies do take advantage of BSD code. The license invites them to. Someone above mentioned SunOS, which came out of the BSD line just as surely as FreeBSD or NetBSD did. Perhaps more so, because Sun inherited the origianl BSD developers. Yes: this code is now hidden.
And GPL is *not* coersion, atleast no more than any other license. If you don't like the license, *don't* use the code.
And, as for religion: RMS is a zealot, and there are many like him. But, on average, BSD-ers still seem more religious than Linux users to me. Many are on a crusade to prove that the BSD license, and various kernels are "just as good, or better" than GPL and Linux.
I like *BSD fine, and I have no moral problem using any code under that license. But, if I want to release free software of my own, you better believe it will be under GPL.
"3) Communism. Get a clue. Not wanting someone to steal your work has nothing to do with being a communist."
I find it interesting that you berate Microsoft for not releasing their code on one hand, and then you accuse them of wanting to steal your code on the other hand.
Perhaps they don't release their source because they don't want you stealing it and using it in your project?
You lead a very confused life...
We can hardly say that the GPL is free
of such advertising problems.
It doesn't say it in the license, and
nobody accepted that they 'should'
call Linux 'GNU/Linux', but RMS tried
to enforce that anyhow.
Calling it the
'GNU Liberal General Public License'
makes a lot more sense.
Then we have the adjectives
Liberally GPL'd (for under LGPL)
Strictly GPL'd (for under GPL)
However, the thing I dislike about
the LGPL is the way that it permits
code under the LGPL to be included
in a GPL'd product without the consent
of the author. (Though changing this would
make it incompatible with the GPL, the
GPL needs to be changed to make it less
hostile to other free licenses)
> Gcc vs egcs, libc vs glibc etc are fine examples of GPL projects splitting.
:-)
Splitting?
By that token, FreeBSD 2.x and FreeBSD 3.x represents a huge split in the FreeBSD project.
Basically, EGCS was a fork for GCC 2.9 (it wasnt
made official until recently).
GLIBC (aka GNU libc v2) wasn't really a fork -- Linux et al. forked libc 1 when it was inactive, and the GLIBC2 shift was needed to close this gap.
The fact that both have closed (or are closing) the holes, in a similar way to the GNOME and KDE projects are beginning to is a sign that things sort themselves out -- Xemacs vs Emacs is an exception (though it is more than coincidence that RMS is involved in that one
Contrast this with past experience with X and BSD. The Open Group almost took over a decades worth of patches and contributions and restricted their availability.
They tried and failed due to the fact XFree86 would take over the lead in X server technology. The better development group won.
They stopped, but they could do it again.
XFree86 would leave them in the dust, and they know it. Why do you think they stopped?
People keep saying "the real reason I use GPL is because I don't want some corporation stealing my code, selling it, and making $$$ without having to reward me."
Well wake up people. How many people who contributed GPL source that is distributed on the RedHat CDs have gotten a single PENNY from RedHat, or are getting stock from their upcoming IPO?
The fact is, the PHBs who are shipping the distributions with YOUR CODE are getting rich off your code *ANYWAY*
Now, you could try selling your GPL app on its own CD distribution, but chances are, it won't sell as well as packaging it together into a complete distributions with other GPL software. And there is certainly a limit to how many distributions the market will bare before you find that no one will care to buy yours.
The GPL has done nothing to encourage users getting rewarded monetarily, all it has done is prevented corporates from linking your code. BFD.
Personally, I think I'd get much more fame and fortune if Microsoft announced or documented that Windows2000 contains a major module that is based on my BSD source.
Unlike the stingy selfish GPL people, when I release my code, I want it to be as free to use as an unpatented scientific discovery. I want people to benefit in every area and be able to change it and use it as they see fit. Letting a thousand different flows bloom.
Our civilization has advanced tremendously to this point based on a economic system that has both open and closed information. I think it's doing fine, and I don't see a need for a revolution run by teenagers because they can't afford to pay for games and music.
Every Linux distribution is running a kernel published by Linus Torvalds. Perhaps different versions, but so what?
If you want real forks, look at BSDi / NetBSD / FreeBSD / OpenBSD / the-nextBSD / afterBSD. At least FreeBSD runs Linux binaries.
Cygnus write proprietary software and bundles it with free software like red hat.
Note the capitalization of the word "free," the propaganda-like blurring of different meanings of that word, and the unfounded assertion that software licensed under the GPL is "free" when in fact it is very much encumbered.
Not what one would call a balanced analysis.
--Brett Glass
Try to calm down and think about the whole thing... if there is _EVER_ a minor feature added by any evil companies, I simply find it hard to believe nobody would dare to do the porting in open source(GPL or BSD) format. It would take some time, but definitely it will be there. By that time, that evil company lose the advantage to sell the product because of that feature, and because there are free alternatives. The market understands these kind of needs really well.
If on the contrary, nobody seems to have the interest for porting that part, don't you think that it is sensible for that company to grab enough credits because of the time and effort made in development? The choice is still on the customer's hands, if they don't like it, just don't buy it then. The evil company will die because of the lack of interest anyway.
Even if they adopted their own standard and add-on, if there is enough concern, I can't see a reason why we can't have a similar open source project going towards that direction. If the new project is proven a good alternative, I believe strongly that nobody will ever buy that product from the evil company.
See ya...
(I'm actually the AC who posted above.)
You are complaining that an effort funded by the taxpayers of the USA and California (aka BSD TCP/IP) in order to advance the computer-industrial complex is somehow being illegitimately being used by Microsoft.
Is it that hard to understand that the intent of the USA and UC was precisely to assist corporations like Microsoft (and DEC, IBM, Sun, Apple, Linus Torvalds, RedHat, So On)? Hardly an evil consipricy - just a government project working like it should.
I'm not really sure where you are going with the rant about the phone companies and hardware. Perhaps you don't like companies in general. If so, I suggest staying away from computers, because with the exception of some in the GNU/Linux reverse-engineering sideshow, pretty much all of the computer industry is profit driven.
Are you suggesting that people like myself are incapable of building such an infrastructure?
Go right ahead. I'm sure "GPLNet" will be right up there with DECNet and AppleTalk in terms of popularity. No wait, at least DECNet and AppleTalk run on other operating systems.
However, anything produced under the BSD lends its weight to assholes. We have enough of them.
Uhh, a good portion of Unix was developed under the BSD. I'd guess that you're using some form of Unix.
And for Mozilla, indeed, Netscape has been changing their mode of business to the support and server market. In other words, they are considering giving the source code out, to the general public under terms very close to the GPL license. They thought that it would lead to a lot of support and innovations from the Bazaar model. Ironically, that's not the case and IE has been gaining even more market share. Part of the reason is that the model is chaotic, and one can't ensure a concrete release is being done on time.
I have never mentioned the same doesn't applied to BSD license. What I wanna emphasizes is that, companies like IBM, Oracle, Sybase, Corel, it would be unlikely for them to release their flagship software under the GPL license(pls check the top of the thread). There are needs for several models to exist, like open-source and close-source, BSD and GPL. They are yet to be decided by the business decision(as for a large enterprise) or the will of the programmer. Merely saying the BSD type of license is bad is simply too arrogant and vice versa.
As a side note, the programmer tends to flavor the GPL license more. However, when a company hire a programmer, it's solely upon the company to decide the type of license they would like their products to be released. It could be GPL, but most likely, as a protection of their business, they won't do so coz their business depends on it. It's not like Red Hat(they gotta do it like that to gain popularity from the public) or Netscape(they already abandoned from making profit from the browser)
I know this could be unplesant to most GPL lovers, but as I see it, this is happening among us.
Do you want to work toward a world of free software or don't you care? If the first is the issue use GPL.
I desire to work toward a world with a lot of free software, which is not the same as a world of 100% free software. I also desire to make a living, buy a house, raise my kids, contribute to scientific progress. I haven't been lucky enough to stumble on one of the three GPL IPO's, and using reasoning often expressed here, don't see why I should be contributing to their venture's success. With BSD I can both make a contribution to free software and earn a living selling proprietary application development services. Why is that viewed as more nefarious (or misguided) by the GPL camp than say the dual-licensor?
the notion that someone can make a profit of someone's code without rewarding them in any way
And what are RedHat's plans to share the wealth after they go public? Share the source, sure, but all that GPL'ed code is going to end up making many people other than the original developers wealthy. How is that better (in a monetary compensation sense) than the greatly feared outcome of using BSD?
Seeing as this has already happened several times, I don't see how you can overlook this.
Interesting claim, care to back it up with details?
As far as the tools that only run on proprietary BSD systems, were any of those tools forked from BSD licensed software? Would a proprietary tools be okay if it only ran on a Linux, but not on a free BSD licensed os?
As it is, if Microsoft is borrowing the BSD TCP/IP stack there should be a copy of the BSD license somewhere in Windows 2K. I don't have a copy, so I can't verify it.
The sad thing about the GPL/BSD debate is that Linux can use BSD code but not vice versa without one OS switching to the other's license. This means that were Linux willing to adopt BSD code, they could grab the best of BSD and combine it with what's already good in Linux (which I'm sure has already been done in some instances).
The eventual result ends up that BSD sort of gets sucked like a leech by MS and others without getting anything in return - one possible reason to like GPL.
Excellent observation. Anyone who uses SPICE in a non-trivial way will continually come up against the problems caused by the multiple proprietary code forks caused by the BSD license. Nothing is more frustating than searching for a SPICE model only to find that it uses extensions not available on standard SPICE. It takes a lot of effort to create a non-trivial SPICE simulation model, and to verify it against real world observations. Porting from a model targeted to a proprietary SPICE offers no guarantee that it will accurately simulate the system under study. Not only must the wheel be reinvented, but it may be reinvented incorrectly!
Disclaimer: IANAL eighter.
You are correct. If there are no patches, the program can be rereleased under a different license. If there are pathces, each and every contributor must give his/her permission.
Ergo: After a couple of development cycles, GPL stays.
> As I understand the terms of the GPL, and subsidiary releases of code (that is, uses of the same code) are also under the GPL. The GPL protects the software, the programmer loses the freedom to choose a new liscense.
Wrong.
I actually contacted the FSF about this. The owner of the copyright can do whatever he wants. Look at this as a book, you write a book and give it tour your friends to edit, they fix your grammer, factual errors, etc, and then send you the changes. it is still *your* book, and you can do whatever with it that you want. Another case is a a publisher is writing a technical textbook, and asks for professors to contribute. Those that do now fall under the copyright of the publisher, unless there is special arangement between the publisher and the contributor, the contributor looses *all* rights to his material; he chose to contribute, he chose to live by the rules of the holder of the copyright. There are many cases of the authors of GPL software deciding that for version 2.x they are not going to make it open source, and there isn't anything you can do about it, it is the way the law is written.
That said, the magic shield of GPL open source isn't a shiney as everything thinks it is, if the author sells out, you are SOL.
Proprietary BSD's have marginalized the free BSD's, which is possible because of a poor choice of license.
The only example that even comes close, is BSDI, which developed their release from the sanitized 4.4-lite/lite2 releases. All the other non-free BSD's I know of come from the AT&T v32 licensed codebase.
The BSD license you're spreading FUD about never enters into the picture.
Care to cite an example of where the Net/Open/Free BSD codebase forked into a proprietary version?
I'll bet this is the case for the company you're referring to, also. Here's how it went. They bought a license from AT&T for several tens of thousands of dollars, got the (AT&T licensed) code from CSRG, ported it to their hardware (a non-trivial investment itself) and are selling the hardware and the software. And if they weren't able to do this, they'd have used something like system 3.
No, BSD is more closely aligned with the ideology of scientists I think, at least those with no information property axe to grind. Have you ever seen a scientific publication that required a copy of the original article to be distributed along with any derivative work?
What's wrong with forks? This is source code, not government. There is value in diversity and experimentation. Ironic how much concern there is over this. Can you be for one (source freedom) and not the other (source forking)? I'd call that cognitive dissonance.
Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I vote for Artistic.
Um, Linux doesn't *have* to do emulation of other Unixes. It's fast becoming the binary standard.
You're not anti open source, you just expect that everyone should be happy to fix the bugs in your software for free and then let you release a proprietary version. Bugfixes under the BSD license can be made proprietary and bugfixes under the GPL license more than likely cannot be.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either way but that is the basic difference.
That's the point. Anyway, once the project gets much bigger than what you originally started with, what right do you have to assert "ownership", anyway?
> I agree with Pedro when he wrote "there shouldn't be a universal license; different
:)
> situations require licenses."
Yep, in terms of technology and correctness, you should just code and not worry about licenses, but in terms of politics and strategy, it's a good idea to choose a license based on what you are trying to accomplish.
There are definately advantages to OpenBSD's license for its purposes, just as I think many OpenBSD developers/users are probably glad that that gcc exists
What gives him the right to sell *my* code? I wrote it, if you want to use it or sell it you have to please me.
Now one could claim that I 'lose nothing' by letting them propriertize my software, it is BSD afterall. This is what I think is the difference between BSD and GPL.
GPL authors believe that the software still has value even after being released with all source code, thus they expect any derivative works to have to pay the price of releasing source code to their changes.
BSD liceners believe that the software has no value after being released with source code. Thus by letting others use it they lose nothing.
Scott Crosby
The point is that the GPL is like humanity: humans
are free, but not so free to choose not being free. You are a slave of your own freedom.
BSD allows you to become a slave, if you want to. GPL does not. Whether this is desirable or not... much philosophy involved here...
The GPL is rooted in science. As everyone knows, modern science was born the 18th century when scientists began openly publishing their methods. Before the arrival of modern scientists, the pseudo-scientists of their day were known as "alchemists". These deluded individuals insisted on keeping their work proprietary for much the same reason that latter-day pseudo-scientists keep their work secret. There was no modern science until the strangle-hold of the alchemists was broken by the open publishing of methods by the early modern scientists. Science was created and progress continued as each new generation of scientists could access and build upon the work of others who had labored before them.
The GPL continues this scientific tradition by realizing that progress in the the scientific arts of computer science depends on keeping its results open and protected from the latter-day alchemists who would turn science back to the dark ages of secret dead-end paths. Those who created the GPL realize that maintaining the open scientific tradition is far more important than providing free labor for rip-off artists. The freedom of the GPL is the same as the freedom of true Science--progress through open sharing of knowledge, allowing us to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, so that we may see further than they.
What I really hate about GPL is that many people seem to believe that the success of Linux is due to the GPL and thus GPL must be a good thing. I am convinced that Linux using a BSD license would have had the same success. The success of Linux is a success of free software, not of GPL.
An argument against BSD License is that someone might fork the code or takes advantage somehow. I ask the readers to give me an example where something like this hurt the various BSDs..
Regards, Marc
Not even that. Yes, it can be incorporated into proprietary products. It can also be incorporated into other free software products (including GPL'd stuff). I prefer 2-clause BSDL (as used in FreeBSD and elsewhere) or the X license not because I want to give proprietary software vendors the freedom to use my code (although I don't care if they do; fine by me). Rather, I prefer such licenses because they don't discriminate against other free software licenses. GPL'd code does not coexist with other licenses, period. If you use GPL'd code, your own code must also be GPL'd. If someone wanted to use GPL'd code in some project using some perfectly acceptable DFSG-compliant license (such as Artistic), they couldn't do that. They would have to GPL their own code. The benefit of shutting out potential use of my code in proprietary software is far outweighed by the sheer irritation of shutting out the rest of the free software community. I prefer very lenient, non-GPL licenses because I want my code to be as useful to as many people as possible, and I want a minimum of legalese, and I consider myself to be a programmer rather than some political activist/extremist on an anti-IP crusade.
There is well written essay by a BSD style license advocate in http://www.daemonnews.org/199906/gpl-e vil.html.
The GPL is rooted in science. As everyone knows, modern science was born in the 18th century when scientists began openly publishing their methods. Before the arrival of modern scientists, the pseudo-scientists of their day were known as "alchemists". These deluded individuals insisted on keeping their work proprietary for much the same reason that latter-day pseudo-scientists keep their work secret. There was no modern science until the strangle-hold of the alchemists was broken by the open publishing of methods by the early modern scientists. Science was created and progress continued as each new generation of scientists could access and build upon the works of others who had labored before them.
The GPL continues the scientific tradition by realizing that progress in the the scientific arts of computer science depends on keeping its results open and protected from the latter-day alchemists who would turn science back to the dark ages of secret dead-end paths. Those who created the GPL realize that maintaining the open scientific tradition is far more important than providing free labor for rip-off artists. The freedom of the GPL is the same as the freedom of true Science--progress through open sharing of knowledge, allowing us to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, so that we may see farther than they.
do we also need the rights to modify the code, distribute modifications, and incorporate it into other projects
We don't NEED the rights to play with the code of others. WANT the rights, maybe. Interesting how you don't want others to use your code in any way they want, but you "NEED" the right to do the same with theirs.
other free projects, if GPL'd; other closed projects if BSD licensed
"other enslaved projects if GPL'd; other shared or non-shared projects if BSD licensed" is how I see it.
The flip side of your argument is that the GPL is less free than the BSD license. The BSD license retains the freedom to incorporate the code into proprietary products, and that's a freedom which the GPL does not allow.
The *real* disagreement between the two camps is over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
I was all set to write a long essay in response, but most of the readers here would probably just appreciate a summary:
The GPL license is conducive to liberating software.
The BSD license is conducive to liberating people.
With the GPL license, the software maintains more of the freedom than the programmers who work on it.
With the BSD licenses, the programmers maintain more of the freedom with what they are allowed to do with derivative code.
This isn't possible with the GPL. It's always there, blatantly in your face, telling you ``You may not use this code in proprietary ventures.'' If a company takes your work, repackages it and sells the repackaging and service for it, your code is still available. It isn't legally permissible for them to take your code, incorporate it into another product and sell that product.
I think this is a large misunderstanding about the BSD license. If someone takes your code and makes a proprietary product out of it, your code is still there. You can't see the modifications they made to it but your source code is still out there on the internet and anyone can still use your code. They have taken nothing from the community by using your code in their product. The copyright to your code is still yours.
Now, that's not to say I agree with a company taking code and not giving back. I'm just saying that they are not removing our access to our code, they are adding to the code and selling their additions. They are removing our ability to modify their code. If you want to modify it, modify our version. Oh, and while you're at, add those extra functions if they are so great people are willing to pay for them.
If you are concerned about people taking your code and not giving you credit there is a BSD license to take care of that. Just add a clause to say they need to credit you. I think it's a selflessness thing. BSD is a giving license. Here, take this code and do whatever you want with it. GPL is a give/take license. Here, take this code but if you modify it you need to give it back for the rest of us.
Personally, I haven't yet decided which license I want to use for my projects. I don't know if I'm selfless enough to allow someone to take my code and not give back. I wonder, if I found someone using my code in a way I didn't like, could I terminate their license?
Laters,
Rick (rick at chillin dot org)
One could also argue that the GPL makes code proprietary to freedom.
Hint: It already does not matter to many people that linux won't run office, quicktime, etc.
Hint: It also does matter to many people that they can't view [insert movie trailer here] because Linux doesn't support the codec.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I sort of wish Rob had told me he was going to post it :) ; I would have reviewed it and changed this. I meant it to say that it cannot be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold - and I am very aware of the difference - but unfortunately I didn't write it that way in its current incarnation.
>Damn - I'd hate it everyone had an OS or
>software that worked.
Wouldn't you though? That is what some of the folks who are proprietizing BSD code could stop. They take the code, proprietise it, and make sure it runs only on their own hardware or that it runs only their software.
>The point is that the BSD license allows more
>freedom of use because companies will not use
>the GPL or they won't survive since they can't
>sell their value-added product because the
>GPL would force them to give the source to it
>to everyone, including their competitors.
That is PRECISELY THE POINT! Companies take BSD code and HOPEFULLY provide enhancements to the codebase back to the developers. You WANT them to use the code and I can respect that. You evidently want a world where there is free and open cooperation - so do I. I just don't trust corporations to go against their profit motive and that includes proprietizing the formerly open code and NOT providing enhancements to the codebase back to the developers.
>Do you honestly expect WordPerfect, Oracle, or
>any of the other big commercial vendors who've
>jumped on the Linux bandwagon (primarily for
>the PR) to actually release their source?
>Not a chance.
This is precisely my point! I EXPECT them to NOT provide enhancements back unless it enhances their profit potential. I understand that they will proprietize source code - that is the whole basis for my logic. Please convince me otherwise if I am wrong as per my tagline.
>The BSD license gives everyone the chance to
>have a good fill_in_the_blank. Witness the
>TCP/IP stack that the Internet lives on -
>from BSD.
I most assuredly agree! I just don't trust corps to be good citizens - it is against their very nature.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
>You say having a good, working codebase is such a
:)
>bad thing.
No, I didn't say that at all! Having a good, working codebase is a Good Thing(tm).
>You rabid GPL advocates are always going around
>with the scare tactic of "oh no, somebody MUST
>be stealing all your code!
I'm not a rabid GPL advocate. I just see the GPL as the best way to ensure that the code stays free as in freedom.
>First off, you can't steal what is given away
>freely.
Can't dispute that!
>Second, as I've said time and time again in this
>discussion, the GPL is not a magic wrapper around
>your code, protecting it from the "evil"
>corporate coders who might steal your code.
True again. Any code that is available can be taken. It's just that if they are caught then there will be serious legal repercussions that many corporations would not like to fund. As such, the GPL works for the purpose it was intended for as does the BSD license.
>Get over yourself; maybe your code isn't worth
>stealing anyhow
I've got a job in programming that says my skills are valuable. I choose not to give them away with no chance of recompense. When I write code for GPL release, I feel that I am contributing to a codebase that provides me with an Operating System and Applications that are outstanding. It's my way of contributing to the community. I know that the BSD folks are contributing SELFLESSLY. I congratulate them for thier baseless and pure hearts. I trust them; I don't trust the corporations.
Anyway, what has this, "Get over yourself" stuff got to do with anything?
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
>By this logic, then, the Linux source code has
>absolutely no value?
Value is a measure of a thing's worth to a person. Linux has much value to me in that it provides benefits.
>Certainly to a corporation this comes close to
>the mark, forcing them to yet again reinvent
>the wheel, or to have to have more staff so
>that 'infected' people can look at some GPL
>code and write up a specification, what the
>code does, and hand that over to a 'clean'
>person and have that person implement the
>specification. Let's say, for the sake of
>argument, that I want to use some of Linux'
>memory management ideas for the x86 in some
>wacko proprietary operating system
>of my own design, for whatever purpose - maybe
>something top secret and military or something.
>I have to hire at least one more person to
>actually get those memory hacks into my
>code base, or it becomes infected and my whole
>ball of wax melts. So, the GPL forces
>reinvention and code non-reuse.
Interesting scenario! Why not have the corporation make a deal with the copyright holder for the rights to use the aforementioned GPL code under a commercially viable license?
Or, the corporation could participate actively in the community both gaining the use of and contributing to the GPL codebase?
The GPL forces anybody that wishes to use the code for profit making purposes to play or pay. If something has value then the buyer must be willing to pay a price for it.
BOTTOM LINE:
Corey, I like your point of view. Actually, I believe we agree with each other more than disagree. From your standpoint, the BSD license is evidently the best choice and from mine, the GPL's protection from being coopted with no rights whatsoever is the best choice.
I believe I understand your position alot better than I did when this thread first started. You really don't care if they take the code - as a matter of fact, you are expecting them to.
GPL and BSDL - two fundamentaly different licensing options with strangely similar goals - software freedom.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
>What kind of reprecussions are we talking about
>here?
-snippety-
>At best, you could force the company to release
>the source code or recall the product, and at
>worst the gpl would be declared invalid.
Declaring the infringing codebase as GPL would satisfy me. If the GPL were to be declared invalid then... well... (it is a subject that deserves to be explored further).
Personally, I feel that the GPL is sound.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
license. However, we don't live in a perfect world so... the guarantees of freedom and source code availability of the GPL are a neccessity.
I respect the ideals and the skill of the BSD people but they are being robbed blind by the corporate element! The BSD folks strive to have complete freedom and the very best code! They will never have the very best code because everyone else will have it too! This situation is probably their aim and if it is... it's working. They are selflessly advancing the state of the art. I'm sure that Bill and Steve appreciate it!
I vote for the GPL because the GPL protected codebase becomes a living thing that constantly improves. It survives the demise of it's creators and is not dependant on any one entity for it's livelihood.
The BSD license provides for a public good that is consumable; the GPL license provides for a public good that is durable.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by The Famous Brett Watson:
I've posted this link before, but it's as relevant as ever, and judging by my web logs most people haven't seen it yet. If you were hoping for something a little more substantial than this "feature", then I can't help you, but if you were looking for something a lot more substantial, then refer to my essay Philosophies of Free Software and Intellectual Property ; seventy kilobytes of HTML in which I lovingly beat the subject to death with a heavy, blunt object. Enjoy.
Er... Emacs and XEmacs are both GPL'd. I don't see that the BSD/GPL issue has any relevance to forks (except that you could look at the BSD license as an invitation to 'fork' off a proprietary product with no adverse consequences).
-Doug
linked with other code (extendable) without it being possible for people you didn't want to poke around
in the code and figure it out. Unless there are readability standards imposed in any licencing sceme (i.e.
the GPL) I think this would be an excellent vehicle for organizations hostile to the GPL to incorporate
GPL'd code in their products, extend, the code, but totally snarl up and render unusable the source they
are required to release with their product. It seems like the inevitable endpoint of arrogant licenses like
the GPL.
From the GPL:
I read this to mean that a 'shrouded' version of the source is not acceptable, since your company would make its modifications to the 'unshrouded' version.
-Doug
Not true. You are free to release code that you write under any license at any time, and under different licenses to different entities. Perl and Ghostscript are both examples of this freedom.
-Doug
I don't see that it's possible to 'draw a line' here creating a distinction. Therefore it's impossible to police.
Interesting point. I do think you can draw a line--it's precisely your distinction between reversible and irreversible transformations. I agree that the GPL doesn't explicitly address that distinction, and I think a court would have to take into account the intent of the GPL to decide whether tar/gzip was legally different from 'shroud'.
Be interesting to see what rms says about this issue...
-Doug
I find it interesting that you berate Microsoft for not releasing their code on one hand, and then you accuse them of wanting to steal your code on the other hand.
No, I don't think that's what he was saying. He doesn't want Microsoft to MAKE MONEY off of his code without contributing to his effort somehow.
-Erik-
And how! That guy has been trolling for weeks now, posting anti-Linux, anti-GPL screeds, and attacking this site and its readers/particpants. Indeed it makes you wonder why he sticks around here. Some people just like to be miserable, I guess, and want to spread their misery around.
--
We can argue about licenses until the cows come home and not get anywhere. I say vote with your code. Release it under a license you are happy with.
I use the GPL. If you don't like it, fine -- don't use my code. That's your choice.
--
> there is no way you can include that code into
> another closed product
You are missing the distinction between copyright and license. If I write code, I own it and can license it as I see fit. Users of my code have to abide by the license, but I, as the copyright holder, do not. I am free to release under a different license if I want to.
--
>Yeah, but we can always find a good lawyer who'll go after them pro >bono for the publicity.
Exactly. Can you imagine the kind of publicity someone like Nader could generate with a court case like this?
As the Microsoft lawyers are being taught in the anti-trust case by the laywers working for the DOJ, it's not about how much money you have or the number of witnesses you try to buy off, it's all about how you play your hand....
So, someone like Troll could release qt under the GPL. Then it remains completely free in the source access sense and for purposes of forking. However, it would be unusable as source for purposes of 'embrace and extend' and anyone that wanted to use it for a proprietary product would have to pay Troll for a different licence.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The main goal of the BSD license is to improve the quality of software, both proprietary or free.
The main goal of the GPL is to promote the free software cause.
Both licenses do a good job at achieving their goal. Both goals are honarable. People who speak ill of either license are twits.
PS: the GPL vs BSD license debate predates Linux.
Exactly, however I might tend to release under the LGPL for that reason, its the best of both worlds. It allows propritary linking, but keeps the source free. Under a BSD Style license company large company X takes great new piece of code under a BSD license, changes it to suit them and releases it closed form. If that company has enough market share, clout, whatever, that new closed standard takes precedence. However if it was LGPLd, the changes must be made available, and therefore cuts down on that kind of shady standards tweaking.
Just to mix things up a bit: What about the LGPL vs. a BSD style license?
I believe that if you want to keep control of your code and still allow its use proprietary products the LGPL is the only way to go. For me the BSD license seems too close to just releasing as to the public domain(which is the *most* free technically).
You catch more flies with honey than with BS.
Posted by the Proteus
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
thus forcing him to possibly reinvent the wheel when he could have simply used the GPL'd code
Whos code? ---------> GPL'd code
You have no right to exercise rights over *HIS* code.
But you want to use my code! Huh?
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
So he no longer controls "his" work. Same thing for any other GPL'd work of any magnitude.
That is a good thing! That is what we want! You effectively give your code to the free world! Then there is no turning back. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
I used to gnash my teeth over the oxymoron of a "free software license", and rally against people using the GPL instead of just releasing something to the public domain. Eventually, though, I realized if I wanted my code to remain free, something like the GPL is a necessary evil. But if you're not concerned about it, go ahead, release public domain, or BSD if you're paranoid about lawsuits. This is a really stupid thing to fight a war over, even if it's just a flame war. Let each author do as he/she prefers...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Microsoft actualy *bought* their BSD tcp/ip stack from BSDi for something like $10Million. They did not steal it.
And the BSD license does not permit companies like Microsoft from stealing code and not giving credit. Read the BSD license some time and look really closely at clause 2, which states:
"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."
So they have to say where they got the code from. They can't just steal it and not give any one credit.
And if the BSD license "drain developers from the BSD space" why are the *BSD projects still around? I don't see a mass exodus of develpers taking off to go work for Microsoft.
Just a couple of things... whilst I believe that Zack is correct, I would recommend talking to a license lawyer (if there is such a thing) (definately NOT an intellectual property lawyer!) if this something worries you. Also (assuming that my understanding is correct), the author can release v0.1 under any license he likes; releasing it under the GPL does not also prevent him from releasing it under an entirely proprietary license at the same time.
Theoretically you could release under the BSD and GPL licenses at the same time (although these would have to be seperate instances of the source code, each with their own license).
In fact each time the author gives his code to someone he can give it out under a different license.
Why anyone would want to do this is entirely beyond me, though...
P.S. I favour the GPL from the purely practical viewpoint that I believe it encourages greater code reuse and collaboration, and protects the rights of the author(s) better.
-- At rest in the information super layby.
The phrase, intellectual property, are for a lot of us profane in itself.
The notion of intellectual property allows people to own ideas, which in itself is mistaken. Intellect, is not an idea, but a stream of ideas. An idea in itself is worthless, if it is not followed by a steady stream of new ideas. And the fact that we allow ownership of single ideas is simply mistaken, because one idea has infinitesimal value compared to the world of innovation we live in.
I think RMS did the right thing, by creating a licence that will satisfy everyone that acknowledges that innovation or intellect is not a matter of one idea. It is a matter of securing that enough people will be allowed to continually contribute new ideas to the original idea.
Owning one idea will only make further innovation suffocate. That is, ofcourse, a perfect situation for a lot of corporations and individuals who do not mind enslaving their users into this primitive proprietary world where problems are accepted because they will be fixed in the next release, which again probably will be available with a discount.
It's a sick world out there, but fortunately a lot of people have the clearsight to release their innovations in a way that acknowledges that they can never be the be all and end all of innvation by themselves.
Cooperation is the key word. And that just don't mix with the misguided desire not to share. If one wants to be alone with the idea and the profits, one will end up very alone with incomes long gone and an old idea.
I don't think that kind of code would legally constitute source code. The company would still be holding its own original copy with full documentation... a version which could not be released without running it through this "shrouding" utility.
Shrouding sounds like an intermediate step, kind of like compiling without linking. Just because it has to be compiled to be useful, it does not mean that it is source.
It's an interesting point though... I wonder if the wording of the GPL accounts for this...
Just imagine the company trying to defend themselves in court. "If this is the source code, why is H23F476 calling B343256 on line 320 of X353423.c?"
To be honest, so far (at comment 13 at any rate) the comments have been insightful and thought-provoking.
Maybe Slashdot is growing up a bit...?
Of course, the tide may turn as soon as people start logging in...but all in all I'd say it was a good sign (I was expecting a bit of a war too).
***
Its a message board you moron. People come here to sound off.
Excuse me for hoping for intelligent discussion on this topic (as one could find in plenty of other articles on Slashdot). Just because you can't provide any...
You can lump yourself into the same category...read your own post. At least I assign a name to mine.
What category? Name?
Clearly "sounding off" is to the complete exclusion of comprehensibility.
I apologize, I totally missed the "BBS Wannabe" reply.
I concur 100%.
Stricly speaking, I thought they could do just that - as long as they released the new code as Free Software in the same sense. As the author states elsewhere, it keeps it from becoming their intellectual property in any real sense.
Not meaning to nitpick, just hoping to clear up some confusion.
Charlie
Actually the NT microkernel is supposed to be pretty decent (at least according to a number of people I knew who worked on different parts of NT). It's the Win32 API and various other OS pieces above the microkernel that is shit. Therefore, if they tacked their various bits of ugly code on top of BSD UNIX, little would change.
Of course, in the world of commercial unices, there's CDE. Kernel code for various commercial unices is pretty decent, but CDE is awful code (IMHO). At least in the unix world, KDE is becoming more and more accepted, and it's code is pretty damn nice (the X server's code isn't too bad either)
It's hard to have a non biased look at both sides of any argument, because someone with enough interest to research both sides will develop a favorite.
Emory: Uh..we're still..beta testing that.
Oglethorpe: What you're testing is me and my patience!
They've also marginalized the free BSD's, as anyone knows who's tried to use a BSD in a corporate environment: you can't get code for a free BSD, but BSDI is usually supported. So you're back to running a proprietary o/s.
;)
GPL has saved Linux from the "fork and marginalize" syndrome of BSD. If a company develops Linux code, you can bloody well run it on your Linux box without buying LinuxI, or something.
(um, no, i don't mean flaming :)
Most of the comments are very abstract. How about some real life examples?
For me, I rail against the BSD license every day, for two reasons:
1) My place of work uses a variety of tools which run on various Unices, including BSD, but NOT the free varieties. If I want to run BSD I *have* to use a proprietary version. This is only possible because of the BSD license. GPL would not allow the proprietary fork. Proprietary BSD's have marginalized the free BSD's, which is possible because of a poor choice of license.
Linux distributions are not "forks", because *any* Linux product will run on my linux box. At most I might have to install a different libc, or something, to get it to work. I don't have to buy a proprietary Linux.
2) A company I've worked for is basically making widget frosting -- code to run with its hardware. Where did the code base come from? BSD. This company has *no* investment in this code. They want to sell widgets. If it were free code they'd still sell widgets. It won't be free code because the BSD license was sitting there, allowing them to walk off with it. BSD had a valuable code base, which could have been extended. Instead it has been swallowed, because the license allows this waffling. This happens all the time: BSD is undercutting the development of free code.
I originally didn't like linux because I first started with BSD based systems (SunOS). But linux eventually won out because of more drivers, some more BSDish userland tools, and the fact that it's a level playing field. The last part is due to the license.
Joe Schmoe and Company X are on equal ground with the GPL. Anyone makes a change, everyone gets to see it. No "Embrace and Extend" for Linux and the GNU utils.
Contrast this with past experience with X and BSD. The Open Group almost took over a decades worth of patches and contributions and restricted their availability. They stopped, but they could do it again. Sun made changes to the BSD base of SunOS - the BSD community didn't get those changes back. BSDI has done the same, though they're pretty good about feeding back patches from what I hear.
The GPL makes people be kind, benevolant dictators. RedHat's recent IPO said they needed to keep the good will of their users/developers - when has any company ever said that in their IPO? The BSD License just assumes people will be good citizens of developerland. Don't get me wrong, I like that assumption more, but experience shows the GPL is needed for the morally challenged.
As for Microsoft BSD, it's quite possible. It's very possible. And they can easily make it incompatible with the other *BSD's and Linux. And if they get their way wrt the US Universal Product Code, they can even stop people from reverse engineering the results. So they'll be able to build off of the ideas free software developers create without having to share those ideas back. And we'll be back to reinventing the wheel all over again.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Err, remember that the discussion is about GPL vs. BSD. Companies are actually more likely to use a license similar to the GPL than one similar to the BSD license, since the GPL at least protects them from someone else changing and selling the program with proprietary extensions. I'm guessing that's why commercial licenses like the MPL are more similar to the GPL than to the BSD license (the MPL is basically the GPL with a provision that allows Netscape to fold contributed changes back into its proprietary products).
--
If you look back to why RMS developed the GPL, you'll find that he was not so much concerned with free code becoming proprietary, but in ensuring that the users of software are free to modify and distribute it. The GPL does not ensure that any and all derivative works will be distributed for free, but that they will be free to distribute.
RMS isn't (or wasn't) worried about whether Microsoft steals/borrows/appropriates code, he was worried about the fact that someone, somewhere, wouldn't have access to the source of the software that they payed for, and wouldn't be allowed to share that software with others.
The point being that BSD code is open to someone, somewhere, making it proprietary and selling it under a more restrictive license to someone who needs the latest feature. Now that person is enslaved by the new license. If you're concerned about the freedom of others, you use the GPL.
Just a note:
Even if a proprietary product is created from BSD-licensed code, the original code remains open and available. The original source of the code is still there.
Also, the code remains copyrighted. Nothing can change that.
Developers who publish under the BSD license and have their code adopted by corporations often do get something back. Sometimes they don't. I've met some people who, when the company doesn't give back, just stop helping out. They are happy that their code is being used, but if it is a one-sided relationship they just stop providing any help or support.
It would be kind of nice to know that Apple thought your code was worth using is OS X.
just my thoughts. KiN.Harbinger
Be smart and work to create. Don't ride on the backs of others.
They way I see it (and I may be wrong, and please tell me if I am) releasing your software under GPL effectively stops you having control over it. There is no way you can include that code into another closed product (that perhaps you may want to sell - a guy's gotta eat y'know) at a later date, even though you probably wrote most of it. Is this correct? If so, thats a possible reason for not using GPL. All IMHO of course.
Uh, hi, read the BSD license. Credit must be displayed when it is due. Otherwise, they are violating the license agreement. And don't come back with how the GPL supposedly prevents this; violation of a license is violation, whether or not it's BSD or GPL. The GPL doesn't magically protect code from being "stolen". Who knows how many products might possibly have the readline library in it with zero credit given, and all the GPL fluff stripped off? You wouldn't be any the wiser.
So it seems the GPL encourages re-engineering, "reinventing the wheel", so as to speak. That doesn't sound like a terribly smart direction to go in.
How would the value-added code in P+ be in any way "owed" to the developer of P? The poster is right; the value of P is not diminished by the existance of P+.
The GPL is not a magic wrapper around your code that will preserve "freedom" (or the FSF's twisted definition of it) any more than the BSD license will preserve true freedom of code. In fact, the GPL has never been tested in a court of law; nobody is even sure it will stand up. In that case, you could say the GPL is really just a feel-good license..
Certainly, you could open up a lawsuit with somebody and start an investigation of the source code in question. But how do the courts interperate the GPL? They haven't yet. It needs to stand up in court first before anything can be said on this topic.
Yes, but this does not diminish the value of the original work.
How can you say Pedro is short-sighted when you just echoed his sentiments? Are you short-sighted too?
GPL encourages reinvention of the wheel, not BSDL. GPL code is off-limits to a developer creating a product, thus forcing him to possibly reinvent the wheel when he could have simply used the GPL'd code and not necessarily given away *HIS* code. You have no right to exercise rights over *HIS* code.
Much of the business world is based on proprietary ideas. Saying that it is not anti-commercial or anit-capitalistic is splitting a fine hair.
I know of several systems that use BSD because the GPL is too restrictive and vague. Look at Whistle and Pluto. Whistle sells internet router boxes based on FreeBSD, while Pluto sells digital video servers based on FreeBSD. Both companies have bits of their system that they do not release. At the same time, both companies have contributed huge amounts of new functionality to FreeBSD. They have both said that they would be out of business if they had gone with Linux because of the GPL. It is too vague to attract investors (since the GPL has never been tested in court, no one can say for sure how it will be interpreted by the courts, which increases the risk to an investor) and too restrictive to allow these companies to maintain a competitive edge.
"It isn't
legally permissible for them to take your code, incorporate it into
another product and sell that product. "
That people still believe this (even people who are advocates of the GPL!!) is alarming.
It is definitely permissible to do this, as long as source is made available.
The author of this makes it sound like "no way no how" may GPL code be incorporated into a commercial product.
Of course, it taints your product such that you must be very careful about the license (and that
pesky open source requirement must be what he
is referring to...)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There's always the difference between the
"spirit" and the "letter" of a law, contract,
or license.
In the suit, one of the arguments might be that
such obfuscation violates the spirit, but not
the letter, of the license.
These cases are why you pay the lawyers the big bucks!
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
> The BSD license is less free than the GPL.
This argument does I don't understand, if anything the BSD style license is MORE free that GPL style. I have problems understanding why everyone keeps calling GPL style for free, THE limitations and non-free parts of this licenes are almost the hardest ones.
There are a loot of situations in real life where GPL's restrictions to the software freedoom hinders it's usability. (I.m.h.o. the main problems are that it has restrictions to linking...)
/ Anders
Anti-Capitalism would be a good thing if everyone would contribute to society's needs without compensation. However, most people would sit on their ass if the didn't need to work for cash.
A common misconception, especially here in American culture. People have an inehrent need to create, and this shows all the time. While there may be a few genuinely lazy people out there, most people experience a phenomenon known as "boredom" when not being productive.
An excellent look at the subject is Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn. It demonstrates that extrinsic motivators such as money actually destroy productivity, not enhance it.
Take care,
kronos
A GPL Advocate's Perspective
I'd say that's not exactly a promise that this is going to be a fair or objective comparison.
(Yes, I missed the title the first time too-- this is intended to be helpful, not flaming)
----------------------
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
I've already heard of one case where someone grabbed a GPL'd cdr package (gcombust, I think) compiled it, and tried to sell it as his own, no source...
So, you can say that GPL avoids this problem, but what is the chance that an average joe will:
a) find out that his code has been stolen
b) have the money (and time) to persue legal action.
Sorry, but when you give away the source, you run the risk of having it stolen. Legally or otherwise.
It's just one of those things.
I didn't say that Pedro was short-sighted. I said he was baised. Thats perfectly fine. Most software coders are going to have a particular favorite license, and they may feel very strongly about it.
What I think is short-sighted is the belief that all software should use one particular license.
I agree with Pedro when he wrote "there shouldn't be a universal license; different situations require different licenses."
I am glad that some software companies use the BSD code in some form or another. If it improves their shoddy products that many less technical people use than I am happy. The average end user receives some benefits from the work of coders using the BSD license.
I am really looking forward to seeing the benefits BSD may give to Apple's OS X users. Apple, even gave back to the community (in some form.) However, with Apple's management, I'm sure they'll find someway to flush another good thing down the toilet. They're very talented and shooting themselves in the feet.
If Microsoft would use BSD for their core-underpinnings rather than Win2000/NT garbage, I think millions of average computers users would end up less frustrated with their win-software. However, Microsoft has always had a talent for marketing, not for producing good software, even when they steal, borrow, or buy it from someone else.
I am very glad the GPL is around. I am very appreciative that Linux can't be scooped up like the BSD's can. The GPL protects software in ways the BSD license never intended or wanted to.
Is my respect for both licenses contradictory? I don't think so. They both serve different purposes, and they both meet their goals rather well. I am very appreciative of the contributions that software authors have given us, using both the BSD and GPL licenses.
Here is an interesting quote from Pedro F. Giffuni, at deamonnews
"I arrived, however, to two important conclusions:
1.the GNU Public License will not save the world,
2.there shouldn't be a universal license; different situations require different licenses."
Both Joe Drew and Pedro F. Giffuni are very biased towards their favorite license in their discussions.
I think it is very shortsighted to think that all software should be licensed under one system, whether its GPL, or BSD.
Authors have the freedom to choose whatever suits their needs or desires, as long as they have a clear idea of what they want for their code's future. How can GPL or BSD be better and more "right" than the other when they both have very different purposes?
Yeah, but we can always find a good lawyer who'll go after them pro bono for the publicity.
-- d'arcy poirot
In practical terms, how is the BSD licence (without advertising clause) different from releasing something to the public domain?
I know there are significant legal differences, but I'm wondering how that translates into practical differences.
As far as I can tell, either way, other people can use your code however they want without telling you. You can also still use the code however you want: under BSD you still own it, under PD everyone owns it. Right?
With PD other people can re-release the code under a different licence, under BSD they can't, but either way they can still use the code however they want. So practically speaking, what is the difference?
I must be missing something here???
There's a pretty good article discussing some of the short-comings of GPL in this month's daemonnews from the view of *BSDers.
It seems to me like the main difference between the two licenses is that one gives you enough freedom to screw yourself over, while one tries to protect you from that, even if it seems like it is infringing a bit on the freedom you'd want as a developer. It seems like that's the source of a lot of anti-GPL angst.
Couldn't Microsoft ship a GPL XFS as an installable file system for WinNT? Of course they would have to ship the source code, but they already do that for things like Perl.(Perhaps I am confused on the GPL and what it means to 'link' to GPLed code.)
Anyways, I'm not sure if XFS has been GPLed. It could be another licence.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Anti-capitalism is a GOOD thing! Put an end to one dollar = one vote
. . . it seems unfair to frame the debate in GPL terms, from the GPL point of view, and I think the essay above drifts off in that direction a bit. Even if it were perfect, though, I really can't see how it could result in anything but yet another moronic flamewar.
So why bother? As the man says: Choose your favorite. I know it's heretical to say this on Slashdot, but choice is a good thing. Being able to choose between GNOME and KDE is a good thing; being able to choose between BSD and Lignux (or between Linux and Lignux, for that matter
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Unfortunately, releasing under the LGPL will not be helpful in many cases, becuase the code can't be linked in as a library but must be integrated (and often changed in the integration) with the rest of the code. A network stack, if it's efficient, will be tightly linked into the rest of the operating system, and so an LGPL version wouldn't be useful to most people. So no, it's not the best of both worlds.
And I object to this phrasing, `keep the source free.' The point of the GPL is not to keep the source free (it's already free when it's out there under any public license), but to force people to make their changes free code as well. Not that this isn't noble ambition in some ways, but let's not confuse that with giving people the freedom to do what they want with the source.
As for people changing the code and releasing it in closed form, sure they can do that. But they could just use closed software anyway; so there's really no difference here. Either way, they're non-standard protocols. I don't think any company has enough market share and clout to kill a broadly distributed open standard that has code available under the BSD license, though; if MS can't do it, who can?
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Well, as usual, most folks appear to have missed one of the key points that makes the BSD license do so much good for the world. The BSD license, by allowing people to use its code in commerical products, promotes commercial products following open standards.
The classic example is TCP/IP. There are a lot of commercial products out there using the Berkeley TCP/IP stack, and one of the big reasons for that is that it's cheaper than developing their own protocol stack or even buying one. The value we see from this is the network effect; that a device communicates using the Berkeley TCP/IP stack rather than Novell's IPX stack or Microsoft's networking stack benefits all of us, because we can much more easily communicate with it (even, perhaps, in ways that the author did not intend).
Open standards are even more important to freedom for computer users than open source. (Having source code is nice, but it's not much good if it doesn't permit you to interoperate with other platforms out there. Linux is popular because it talks to other computers.) Therefore, I'd say that the Berkeley license has done more than any other licence to bring us to the state today where we have a lot of freedom in our computing choices.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Taking BSD liscence stuff and repackaging and GPL'ing it isn't a good move for those looking for respect in either community. Those are the breaks :)
You see, I believe one of the best liscences out there is the "lesser" GPL, which was completely ommited in this comparison. The lGPL gives ALL software writers freedom to integrate libraries and programs into proprietary code, but those lGPL'd libraries and programs must still be freely availiable from the software writers in source code form. In other words, both proprietary-nonGPL'd software and free software benefit. Free software like Gtk+ can gain much greater support, and as more proprietary software houses jump onto the linux bandwagon, they will have things to add to and improve in Gtk+ itself. ;), it seems to me that the GPL actually is more geared to "free beer" rather than "freedom". :)?
Straight GPL has always beeen to restrictive in this area. GPL'd (not lGPL) libraries and programs can not be used IN ANY WAY in proprietary software. The GPL is for the advancement of "free" software, but only for "free" software authors. If it can't be used to help everyone, including evil proprietary coders
Isn't it time we re-name the "lesser General Public License"
Woo. And this is that "non-biased" article that everyone was whining for. Wow. They sure do get results around here.
GPL'd code isn't off-limits if you are creating a product. Plenty of people create products with GPL'd code - RedHat, for example. Now if it isn't a GPL'd product that you are creating, then you may have some problems.
Your hypothetical developer doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, as long as he is willing to help out other developers by making his code GPL'd the same way that those developers helped him out originally. But this doesn't force that developer to do anything, it just allows them the choice: spend time reinventing the wheel, or else use GPL'd code and contribute a little back to the GPL code base which you are graciously allowed to use by its authors.
This way, the GPL will prevent the reinventing of whatever your developer is working on - since he has to GPL in order to use other GPL'd code (saving him time), later on someone else can use his code (saving them time). Net result: increased code reuse, faster cycle time, and code quality improves more quickly, which is what RMS and the Free Software Foundation wanted in the first place.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Who is being coerced here? I don't see any grumbling over on linux-kernel, or on freshmeat, or any place else where GPL'd software is being created. These people don't seem to be chafing, they seem to be happy to be writing GPL'd code. And there are plenty of projects which aren't GPL'd whose participants aren't complaining. Nobody is coercing them to write GPL'd code either, and they are happy.
The only people that seem to be grumbling are folks who want to use GPL'd code in non-GPL'd projects. I'm sorry if those folks don't like their alternatives, but the GPL doesn't come no-strings-attached. The authors of GPL'd code have specified the licensing terms of their code, and if you don't want to use that license, you certainly have alternatives. You may not have other zero-cost alternatives; RMS never promised you a rose garden. If the GPL'd code that you want to use is so well done that it is a difficult decision not to use it, then perhaps there is more merit to the GPL approach than you are allowing yourself to consider.
You are assuming that someone who writes some code and "gives it away to the world" is somehow more moral because they chose to contribute their code without being asked and without asking for anything in return. In other words they contributed to a charity - they saved other people time and money out of the goodness of their heart. Good for them, but the goal of the GPL is not to encourage charity but to encourage higher quality software with available and reuseable source code. The author of GPL'd code is also providing their source code out of the goodness of their heart (after all, they didn't have to GPL) and they may not receive anything back at all either. But that author knows that their code will stay free and will be provided to anyone who receives software which includes it. In that way, they have given much more to the end user than your developer, because everyone who receives the software must be given the code and will be able to learn from it and improve it. Authors of GPL'd code are making a free moral choice the same as your developer, but since they feel that the GPL reflects their values, they have chosen to GPL their code.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Access to the original P cannot be restricted - you are correct. The whole BSD/GPL debate really comes down to who gets the benefit of the changes made from P->P+.
In the BSD world, the author of the + section can distribute both P and + together, without source code, and only that author receives the benefit of the + changes. Everybody else has to reinvent the wheel if they wanted to get P+ code and didn't want to get the + from the + author.
In the GPL world, the author of the + section must distribute the original P with source code if they distribute it at all, and if the + code incorporates code from P, then they must distribute the + source code as well. Then everyone can include the + code in their GPL'd projects, which is a benefit for them. Of course, the author may not make as much money (if any) distributing a GPL'd P+ as they would have under the BSD license.
The GPL has a very specific view of what is good for the software world: software distributed with GPL'd source code. Software distributed with GPL'd source code leads to more of the same, which was the FSF's goal. Of course, if you don't like this goal (if you prefer proprietary software or, as another poster pointed out, other free software licenses) then you aren't going to like the GPL or its goals.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
This is something I have never really understood. Can someone give me an example of how, with whatever license, someone can take a project, P, amend it to create a new, proprietary project, P+, and then restrict access to P as a result of having created P+? If P has either BSD or GPL licenses, isn't it going to be around forever? For that matter, if P has no license at all, but is just released into the public domain, how can it be restricted? I can certainly see how someone could restrict the new part, (P+ - P). However, that's the P+ creator's work, and she should get whatever credit and value she wants out of it.
How am I confused?
How does one enforce GPL?
After all, closed source programs could use GPL without anyone notices!
For example, Let's assume Bill Gates decides to make NT crash free.
He's looking for a bug in some device driver, but when he sees the size of NT's source,
he gives up, and just steal it from Linux.
Or he wants support for other filesystems besides FAT, or IP masquarading, or whatever other feature.
Theoreticly, noone can check for GPL violations in anything!
From that point, my software can be BSD or LGPL and it won't matter.
Is there a "warrent" to allow a court to check a source to see these violations?
For all we know every proprietary product may have GPL'ed code in it!
---
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
Not quite. If you incorporate the GPLd code into your program, you have to release the program under the GPL as well. If you don't, you're violating your license to use the GPLd code. Code under the LGPL is under different terms, but someone still needs to be able to rebuild your app against a newer version of the LGPLd code or you're in violation of the license on the LGPLd code.
You're right in that you don't have to actively give your code to anyone you don't give the binaries to if you incorporate GPLd code, but you can't prevent them from giving it to anyone else per the GPL either.
Tell Caldera (DR-DOS) that M$ is afraid of illegal things...
;-)
Moreover, there is no way to tell they got stuff because reverse engeeniering is forbidden by M$ licence. However you can have a hint : if the code is buggy its M$'s own code, if the code is good that's "Free Soft Community" code
But in fact the problem really is M$ can get BSD or even GPL code (illegal practices do not seem to annoy them), integrate them and after copyright the stuff. And even patent it. They did it with Open Internet technology from the W3C...
PS : illegal practices of M$ have not been proved in trials. That's my belief as an individual based on news.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
license mean copyright (or left), that is restriction definition about copy and use.
I you give something without copyright/left, it is less than public domain. It belongs to noone, that means anyone can take possession of it, then it can forbid even the creator to use the stuff.
note I am not sure at all of that, if anyone can check ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
You are apparently confusing the idea of libre, or liberated software, with public domain software, if you consider freedom as being able to do whatever you want with it.
The point of liberated software, or what the FSF refers to when it says Free Software, is that it has been released from the bindings of property. No one can *own* it any longer. You can use it, copy it, share it, modify it, sell it, or ignore it, but you can't own it. This is frightening to many people because it shakes the foundations of our intelectual property beliefs.
If this bothers hackers out there, ignore the GPL and use a different license.
As far as what word should be used to refer to these different types of software, there is no good solution, the Enlish language is fluid and dynamic, what means one thing this year might mean something entirely different next year . . . good luck.
Perhaps this debate has been raging for years because it's not quite as simple as you believe it to be. I think there is a place for proprietary software as well, just not *every* place. Also, there seems to *be* quite a bit of robust, useful software created under the GPL, which is I suppose, a subset of RMS' "utopia", you refer to.
Regarding LGPL'd code..
IANAL, but I believe that the user doesn't need to be able to *rebuild* your app against a newer version of the LGPL'd code. Dynamically linking to the LGPL'd library, so that the end user can just "drop in" a new version without rebuilding is good enough.
You're confused. If you release the changes as freely available, then it's no longer propriatary. (The changes also have to be GPLed, so the people you give teh changes to can give them to whomever they what to.)
> GPL says, you can use my software as long as I have access to any modifications to my code.
Not exactly. GPL says, "you can use my software as long as I have access to any of your code that relies on my code for some of its functionality."
Free software is about freedom of choice.
--Corey
Not only will they not deserve liberty or safety, Mr. Franklin, they will be DENIED both!
I think there are other reasons why the BSD camp is miffed over the GPL success. I believe that these are much more important than the "jealousy" reason.
1) Difference of culture. BSD advocates are more low-key. GPL advocates are gung-ho. BSD advocates see their license as an excellent choice. GPL advocates see their license as the only moral option.
2) The freedom issue. If freedom is paramount, why restrict the freedom of the user? In the mind of the BSD advocate, their software is free for everyone, but GPL software is only free for certain people. It truly does not bother the BSD advocate that a proprietary company might use their software.
3) The religous issue. This is probably the biggest visible difference between BSD and GPL. BSD types have no desire to proseletize. GPL types actively promote the GPL to the point of religious conviction. In disagreement between BSD and GPL is viewed by the BSD side as merely differences in opinion, but by the GPL side as outright blasphemy. A post that even slightly casts doubt upon the GPL will be vigorously flamed, but it takes a truly outrageous post against the BSD to get even a polite letter of disagreement.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
How many people do you think Cygnus would be paying to write free software if they add the option of releasing changes to gcc as propietary?
I'll tell you why /. should keep bringing up the GPL ad infinitum nauseumque, and pretty much ignore BSD:
The fine folks at UC Regents aren't going to change the BSD license anytime soon. It's been thru two decades of crucible, they own it, and nothing we whine or complain about is going to induce a bunch of bureaucrats to change something that already does just exactly what THEY want it to do.
The GPL, on the other hand, is OURS. Anyone who cares enough can use it, or even (Larry Wall) come up with their own similar kind of thing. And slashdot is the crucible in which we flame the hell out of it, and what is left is the pure gold we were in search of. Yes, there's much more heat than light. Such is the nature of things. So it cheeses off the BSD'ers. Well, I say, nuts on'em if they can't use a filter... or write content of their own, as was done here. But this is bazzar-mode, the way things get improved, and since Usenet is all but unuseable, we choose to get blood all over Taco's floor instead, and he seems to be cool with that. In short, we're actually trying to improve the darn thing here, whether we know it or not. Not gonna happen to BSD, and IMHO it doesn't need it. So of course, GPL will get brought up again and again, and BSD will get short shrift.... because nothing's HAPPENING with the BSD license, and won't. 'Tis the nature of the news, folks.
If you don't like what Taco and the rest of us are up to, you can vote with your feet... but don't expect your whining to make it past my threshold....
--
We can't legislate against every stupid thing people will do.
-- Jesse "The Governor" Ventura
I'm a GPL partisan myself, but I think that when someone sets out to write an article, they should decide whether they are going to examine both sides of the argument or just advocate one side.
This article is GPL advocacy, not a genuine look at "both sides".
Though it's true that the BSD license allows code written freely to become proprietary, history has shown that companies that do take advantage of the BSD license have a tendency to give back to the community even though it is not compulsory.
The BSDites argue that the GPL's giant "no-no" clause regarding proprietary rights scares companies off. You know what? They are right. Although we've seen alot of free software emerge lately from the corporate world, almost all of the contributors have opted OUT of the GPL.
I think that both licenses have their place, and ultimately I think you'll find GPL'ed software running somewhere below BSD'ed software as a common support infrastructure. The spiffy "add-ons" and extras may be open sourced, but I don't think the corporate world is ready to accept relinquishing the rights to their intellectual property.
--- Tao
As Doug points out, Emacs and XEmacs are GPL'd (does this other guy even know who wrote Emacs? and he's in favor of the GPL... sigh). Anyway, NetBSD and OpenBSD split because of personality conflicts in the core team. Has the code forked? Um no. All of the BSDs borrow code from the others.
Why people think the BSD license forks code and the GPL is somehow immune to this? Gcc vs egcs, libc vs glibc etc are fine examples of GPL projects splitting.
If M$ is scared of Linux (and I don't think they really are - whether they should be is another question) and not of *BSD, it's certainly not because Linux uses the GPL. If they are scared it's because of the userbase of Linux and the hype it's been getting in the media.
Looking at growth trends, FreeBSD is essentially on the same growth curve as Linux but 2-3 years behind (attributable to the 4.4-BSD court case and the switch to the 4.4-BSD-lite code.)
Some things that people seem to ignore about licensing are:
You can license your own software under any license that you think proper. There's nothing that says you can't write your own license that's in the style of BSD or the style of GPL --one that has all the good points and none of the bad. This may be the best idea in a lot of cases.
AFAIK, a developer could release code under the GPL (or anything else), and at any point later, take that same code, and put it into their own proprietary project _WITHOUT_ releasing the source. I believe this is so, because the GPL represents your terms of license for your product, and it's legally acceptable for one to change their licensing terms whenever they like. According to a clause in the GPL, the person wouldn't be able to prohibit people fromstill using the GPL'd version of this product, but the person, since they're the owner of said product, also wouldn't be bound nessecarily by the GPL. (Anybody have a definitive answer here?)
The GPL represents a lot of personal values of richard stallman. While I have a great amount of respect for mr. stallman, his values aren't always on par with mine (and this gnu/linux thing just has to go... but back to the point) -- I think that nobody should feel obligated to use a license that they don't agree with 100%. If you fully agree with and understand the GPL, then by all means, use it. Otherwise, maybe you should look for an alternative, BSD is one such. As I said before, even write your own license that reflects your beliefs.
Freedom, like a lot of other things, has a slightly different meaning for everyone. When you release "free software," you should be comfortable calling it "free," or there's no point. Pick a license that will do what you want it to do, and none of what you don't -- it's not that big of a deal.
I don't understand how there is any coercion in the use of the GPL. Nobody is forced to write code that is derived from GPL licensed code. Anyone can write their own code, hire someone to write it, buy a library, or write code that is derived from BSD or some other non-copyleft license.
BSD is there for those who want to be sure that their efforts remain free, and/or are offended by the thought that their code will be used in a proprietary product. Those who don't mind are free to release their work under another license.
If the GPL were the only license available then there would, indeed, be coercion. As long as there is choice, there is none.
Information is not Knowledge
1) The GPL gives you the ability to share code with someone, without them using it in a proprietary project against your will. If they want to use it in a closed-source project they can talk to you, and get you to release it to them under a different license, perhaps for some payment. With the BSD license, that company could use your code without either paying you, or releasing it as open source. That may be a certain kind of freedom, but it's like the freedom to personally fund Microsoft's R&D.
2) Microsoft. Remember the big exploit flurry a year or two back, with most OSes being hit at the same time. This was all tracable back to the BSD source code they used. With Linux, this source code was still open, and not only contributing to the community, but also available to be fixed. With Windows, they had used the BSD source code, instead of writing their own, but they used it in the ugliest closed-source project on the market, and the one that makes the most money for them, which they use to kill projects like Linux and BSD. So, the BSD license allowed MS to get something without developing it, or buying it.
3) Communism. Get a clue. Not wanting someone to steal your work has nothing to do with being a communist. The reason I wouldn't want MS using code I wrote in Win2k wouldn't be that I'm anti-corporation, but because I want my due. If they code is so great they've got to have it, then they should fork over a few $$$. If it's not that good, then they can bloody well write their own if they want to put it in their evil closed-source monstrosities.
The way the world works 101.
If you release source code under license A, then later decide to use license B, everyone who downloaded that code when license A was attached can use it under the terms of license A. This means that if you release something under a permisive license, you've lost the ability to put it under a more restrictive license later, because the old copies are out there. But if you start with a restrictive license, you can always release it under a permisive license later on.
So, if you want to have a say in how people use your source code, release it under a license that restricts their ability to close the source, and later, if they can provide you with a good reason, or enough money, you can release it to them with a different license.
Here's a link to a Slashdot story published last month, about a pro-BSD article. I think this answers your point.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/05/13/1317239.shtm l
"but they don't want to give people the right to
make the code proprietary."
This is the problem BSD'ers have with the GPL: the overwrought drama over the possibility that someone, somewhere might hide some code.
Most BSD'ers support free code, and they have full confidence in the relative merits of free code. What they don't have is the compulsion to coerce others into involuntary compliance with this view.
If people take free code and turn it proprietary, then they automatically suffer all the increased costs and headaches associated with developing, debugging, and maintaining a closed source tree. That's their karma. BSD'ers are willing to let it go at that, and not make a religious crusade out of the issue.
If a certain small niche gets served by a proprietary solution, that's fine too. But overall, the fact is that the cards are stacked against largescale exploitation of BSD code. People will figure that out eventually, and in the meantime, there's no point in alienating present and future allies in a fit of ideological intransigence.
There probably would be possible to create a correspondance between the original code and the shroudded code and to make a program to "unshroud" the code. We just need to be able to know the diff between the original code and the shroudded code to incorporate these changes in the official distibution.
And the GPL protect more a company code than the BSD license. Imagine SGI release their XFS under BSD. Microsoft come and adapt it to NT under the EULA (what they did with BSD network stack in 95 I've heard). In this case SGI made a great gift to Microsoft. If they release it under the GPL MS can't embrace and extend it as easily (unless the GPL don't stand in court of course). Of course it would make more sense for SGI to release it under a MPL-Npl like scheme.
So these three types of license have three different purpose. The GPL to ensure the freedom of the source (even if this mean giving up other freedom). The BSD to ensure the maximum freedom for the developper. And the MPL/NPL-like licenses to make a compromise between closed sources softwares and open sources softwares.
And if you don't like the GPL (i.e. "arrogant licenses like the GPL") then don't use it for your code.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Hum, in fact Emacs is covered by the GPL and not by the BSD license.
But that is true that the BSD license seems not to prevent code forking. At least not at the OS level, look at all the BSD derivatives (SunOS, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSD/OS, Darwin, and probably others)
On the other side most of them seems to contribute code back to the common pool and some of them (*BSD) are even binary compatible.
So these splintering are not that bad and can let think that even if their was something like Linux* (!= OS's rather than != distros) this would be less a problem than the Win3.11/95/NT/2K splits.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Don't know what will be the license for XFS but this probably will be a Mozilla like or an APSL like.
For a company that open some of their sources (like SGI, IBM...) this makes more sense to open it under GPL, where everybody is equal, than under BSD style, where everybody is equal at first but anyone can close the source on his enhancement.
Maybe MS can ship a GPL'd FS in Windows NT but they must keep their changes to the FS open so anyone can use their enhancement and they can even be included in the official release. With the BSD license they don't have to release their enhancements and these enhancement don't benefit us, they just benefit Microsoft.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I really have enjoyed this thread, as it's the same kind of thing I was wondering about - what if I want to be able to release some software, but also be able to sell (or give away) a set of codebase for use in a proprietary project? I personally wouldn't mind if someone was using code for a closed project as long as I knew they were using some of my code.
I was also thinking of a twist on what happens when you put something under the GPL then take that away in a later release that others had contributed to. If it was a problem, who would sue whom? Could the other contributors sue the author? Could only the author sue himself? Or would the FSF have to sue anyone who tried something like this in order to maintain the integrity og the GPL?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are several examples of where code forks in BSD projects have hurt. Emacs vs XEmacs is one example, and the split that created OpenBSD from NetBSD is another. There most certainly are more, but those were two big projects that had rather nasty code forks. Depending on how you look at either of these code splits you may think they helped the project, but nevertheless, these code splits left both the new project and the existing one to have fewer developers, which is not good for the community.
If it is true that Microsoft used the FreeBSD tcp stack in WinXX, the worst problem is not that the person who wrote it does not get credit, the problem is that whoever uses the BSDed code can make it better and not have to share their improvements.
The WinXX tcp stack *could* be 5 times more efficent than FreeBSD's, but Microsoft (or anyone else) not only does not have to give credit/royalties to the developer, but they don't have to share their improvements.
This article is nice, but a little TOO simple. I wish it would go into a bit more detail as this is something I am very interested in, but don't know too much about.
I guess some BSD advocates also beleive it is important for their liscense to be appealing to companies to use. While GPL advocates say that if a company wants to use the code, they have to submit to *thier* liscensing terms.
I read somewhere that a company or someone can pay the copyright holder to reliscense the software. Is that legal?
Anyway, your choice of liscense is as simple as this (unless there are some moral implications to this). Choose. Both makes free software. Makes no difference to me.
--
Though this review might make a nice comment for a real article, it doesn't seem to make much of an article by itself. It merely points out a few simple facts (BSD != force openness), its not a series of revelations. Perhaps if we had gotten a handful of different well written reviews, from both perspectives, things would be different.
The little jibe at the BSD advocates in the article was pointless, since there are plenty of GPL people who feel exactly the same way.
Perhaps a simple, side by side, unbiased and unopinionated comparison of the licenses would have been more appropriate?
I think the real issue is less about freedom, and more about whether you are anti-proprietary and/or whether you care about somebody else making money off of your code.
Something that most people seem to have skimmed over or forgotten completely in this discussion is packages with multiple authors. Now that the Linux kernel has a bazillion contributors, each one "owns" a small piece of the code in the kernel. Each and every person would have to change their licensing terms to let the kernel as a whole change its licensing terms. So no, you can't just change the terms whenever you want if your product becomes popular enough to have multiple contributors.
On the other hand, I am an author who uses the GPL on my software because most of my stuff is small potatoes in a niche market (subtitling =), and I have no extra contributors right now. It would be way easy for someone to take my hard work and turn it into their own proprietary product. I am making my work for fellow fansubbers (and any commercial houses who want to use it) and I would be very irritated indeed if someone repackaged my software (credit or not) and sold it for $1000 a pop.
Cryptic Allusion - New Mac and Dreamcast Games!
>This isn't possible with the GPL. It's always there, blatantly in your face, telling you `You
> may not use this code in proprietary ventures.' If a company takes your work, repackages it and
> sells the repackaging and service for it, your code is still available. It isn't legally
>permissible for them to take your code, incorporate it into another product and sell that product.
But not quite... as I understand it, it IS legally permissable for them to take your code, incorporate it, and sell that product. They ARE required to give the altered version of the code to everyone they sell it to, or to everyone that uses it. This is important, not only for this commercial case, but also for internal uses by companies. If I alter a GPL'd product, but only give binaries to people inside my company, I just have to give them the code as well, or tell them where to get it.
This is a point that I see sometimes missed or downplayed. The GPL does not mean that you are required to release your code to the public always, but only to those you give the product to!
As far as the comparison between the licenses, I have to say "no opinion."
Share and Enjoy!
------ Nope, Not me, you can't prove I said that!
I think you're pretty close, but there is an aspect that perhaps you haven't considered. Here's one scenario based loosely on an industry I once worked in.
A small company is developing vertical market software. They expect to make most of their money by selling services (custom programming, installation, auxillary data), and relatively little on the software itself. Rather than go through the effort of selling the software, they decide to give it away so that they can get their foot in the door to sell other products and services. Open source makes sense, because they don't want to give the customer the perception that the software is worthless -- rather that the software is unencumbered.
The industry they are selling into is dominated by one main supplier (not a computer company, but supplies other things that this industry needs). If the company goes BSDL, then this company can hire its own programmers, fork their own slightly modified version. They can use their superior distribution channels (and possibly use some illegal bundling) to grab all the revenue streams the entrepreneur was going to make.b
Under GPL, if the big company makes some minor changes, they have to give the source code away, therefore the entrepreneur can still compete, but entirely on the ability to give better service.
This is not to say GPL == good and BSDL == bad; just that GPL is probably better if you want to make money as a result of your coding efforts.
It's kind of ironic to hear BSDL advocates flaming GPL (like in the Daemon News article) as communistic, because while I think releasing BSDL'd software is very noble, as an entrepreneur, GPL gives me a better shot at making money.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
READ the fucking license before posting.
and check out Buying from FSF at www.gnu.org/orrder/order.html
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
The FSF sells their CD's for quite a bit of money, take a look. They're not starving! And they're probably pretty comfortable. Granted they would rather spend $1000 on a good amplifier, mixer, and axe than a damn Rolex!
Read: http://www.gnu.org/order/order.html
I should then demand the freedom to lock someone up. All I'd have to do to get a bunch of idiot emotionalists on my side is tell them some bullshit fairytale of a battle that was won when the opposition was locked up. When people work 40 hrs a week, feed 3 children, pay $100's in bills, they tend to forget history and you'll be able to tell them anything.
I understand the BSD license, and I know they're doing the same thing GPL'ers. It's just that they depend purely on vague values, ignore the legal and patent minefield were actually living in, and they never consider the principles and conditions that allow the freedoms they're fighting for to exist in the first place. Beyond that they're ok people.
Then there's the BSD pundits (there's a few just like our GPL pundits which are worse than Stallman, Raymond, and Perens all together could ever be on a bad day) you know the wanna-be philosophers who give both their fellow BSDers and GPLers a bad name.
They're the only ones accusing GPL'ers of Communism. I've seen some pretty calm posts from
real BSDers.
Here's a message to the wannabe's:
Communism was a theory called Karl Marx's Marxist Socialism.
First, that never happened! Second, he was completely wrong! He rejected rationalism (get this) because people around him were not behaving rationally, so he said reason doesn't exist.
What did happen was the Communists took the powers of production from the rest of the people. Guess what? Historical Communism as I've just defined it is precisely what "capitalism" is today. Gates is a bastard commie. Capitalism did exist in its intended form back when people worked their asses off to get an invention produced. These days American capitalism is just like the earlier Russian capitalism. They beat us at the capitalist race too. They had a harder time holding on to true healthy capitalism because they tried to sklp the industrial revolution. They ended up with technology that the mass populace was unable conceive practical uses for. When America's industrial revolution took place most people knew about it. What we call capitalism is a load of shit marketting, scamming, spamming, and perpetual litigation. None of that is hard to do if you have the stomach for all the doublethink it involves.
Software is not hardware. It may take time. There's code to write. And sure it takes to compile and debug (do proprietary companies still do that?). But realise this you're comparing a state-of-the-art pail to carry water in to the well. Sure it takes time to build a machine to carry water to your customers. The does not mean you can stop someone from taking their own time and going to get the water themselves. Proprietary companies do this with bullshit NDA's.
There is little water without the the pipes and machinery getting it from the well. There is no software without the PC. Where would you be had IBM won its suit against Pheonix over blackbox blind-engineering their BIOS. The IBM would come in fruity colors by now.
There is no market for water is people have to pay extreme prices to get water and aren't allowed to get information to get it themselves. The market lies dormant limited to pure survival purposes.
There is no market for software if the means of production (information, gcc, libraries, source) are taken away. The market lies dormant as purely Visual Basic interface design. No kernel, no document and information management, no personal video editing, no open gaming development. (TRY UNREAL! Four years open development!)
But right now the biggest problem is the legal patent minefield.
Seriously this is the proof of the GPL:
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative
> >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use
> >
> >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under
> >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code
> >directly to Microsoft.
>
> And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing
Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they
see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's
unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains
developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and
develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project
as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD
license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point
this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
GPL is good where ... GPL rules.
Hello, it's a very commonly used license and the world itself is a GPL world. We live in a world where information matched with education and skill equals production. Why do you companies try to take code away? Why do you think that the computer market took off when companies gave out schematics and programming books with their products.
> >>Unlikely. Judging by the window 2000 beta traces they run a BSD stack derivative
> >>close to freebsd - and the BSD license permits such use
> >
> >Which is a good reason to *NOT* release open source code under
> >BSD style licenses. You might as well just send your code
> >directly to Microsoft.
>
> And the problem with Microsoft using all sorts of Unix code is...?
is that they would never admit it, _and_ they would continue badmouthing
Unix/Linux/BSD. They simply can take advantage of BSD code whenever they
see fit - without acknowledging it and without giving back anything. It's
unethical and abusive, and this is what the GPL prevents. It also drains
developers from the BSD space (after all they could now just go and
develop networking code for Microsoft), which is bad for the BSD project
as a collective effort. These are just a few of the many naivities the BSD
license has, and Microsoft Halloween documents pretty accurately point
this out. They are afraid of Linux, but they are not afraid of *BSD.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I'll try that in my next life thanks
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Windows NT Server 4.0 Networking Guide, p.781: "Windows Sockets is a programming interface based on the familiar 'socket' interface from the University of
California at Berkeley.
Compared to what? The GPL shows everyone where the code comes from. How many people using NT ever read that particular book? I have Win NT Enterprise Networking... No word of Berkeley.
The reality is that the entire point of
Berkeley TCP/IP was to assist companies like Microsoft, Sun, and Apple to build a standard networking infrastructure. Which they did.
Are you suggesting that people like myself are incapable of building such an infrastructure? The whole industry would love to have you believe that only MS, Apple, SUN can do the work.
Money problems? Really why do you think that is?
Personal opinion for example: Hardware takes time to set up. And I'd have it taken out to introduce a robust system that doesn't cost billions of dollars in order to upgrade every five years.
Dump the Phone companies, setup an open satellite based network with no spying, no regionalism, no centralization, and no restrictions. Companies would never let you do that. It isn't impossible nor a pipe dream.
However, anything produced under the BSD lends its weight to assholes. We have enough of them.
Now I don't know about you, but as far as I see it BSD allows companies to make prpoducts proprietary meaning that if there's code from the BSD source in your program they'll sue your ass. C'mon they've sued for much less. Look n feel lawsuits remember.
By the way GPL'ers aren't starving either.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Seriously, what forks. Do you call a car dealership a fork of the company or a fucking distributor!
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
e.
Any way this is a part of a project I'm running so we'll see.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
And indiviual programmers would have a lot of trouble turning out that infrastructure. But Sun and MS and Apple didn't do it either. It took a combined effort of many, and
they got lots of money for doing it. And then they released all of their work. It was BSD who produced the infrastructure, for use by everyone (including companies). It
wasn't created just for BSD, it wasn't created just for Open Source programmers, it was done for everyone's benefit.
Please, you don't have to take a course in building a bridge out of toothpicks as you make it out to be, you just have to be willing to do the work, and stay streamlined.
The structural considerations are classic cases of simple complexity theory. Just like the kernel it's not a matter of IRQs and registers and dry asm code like people seem to think it is. It's just a matter of being able to tell the difference between kernel space rules and user space rules. That's it. The only thing that slowed it down was concern for finances.
As for being sued by a company usurping BSD liscensed software and then suing anyone who has that BSD source, you don't understand the concept at all. If the code
already exists under the BSD liscense, and you use it and some company who has used it in proprietary software sues you, you just have to show the court the BSD
liscensed copy you used. Just because that company used the code, doesn't remove it from the public domain. Yes, they've sued for less, and yes there were 'look n feel'
lawsuits. And very few of those succeeded.
Go ahead compete with the marketting demon that most companies spend their money on especially when it comes to getting things done cleanly. Sure yours is faster but nobody will use your code know that it exists or benefit from the freedom you gave them as long as MS can produce MS-BSD.
By the way for your info Linux was in a similar situation as BSD. BSD got thrown back 2-3 years Linux one week.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
That is true for a piece of software written by one author. If several people has contributed to the software, a closed-source vendor should as permission from all the contributors to use it under different license rules.
It all boils down to one thing: The issue is political! Do you want to work toward a world of free software or don't you care? If the first is the issue use GPL. If your point is, that you want your piece to be free but you don't want to rule out others from doing otherwise, you will be satisfied with BSD license.
As long as you offer your (free) software to the world, that piece will be free and no one can steal it (like stealing your car) away from the public.
That said, the software is YOURS after all. So like others have the right to restrict on usage, you have no moral obligation not to do the opposite, to restrict on others freedom to restrict what is based on your work. Sometimes the FUD against GPL makes it sound more suspicious to do the second. But the work is yours, and you do get to decide on your own things, so be it!
Freedom is to be free to make the good decisions, not nessesarily to be able to do wrong! (So is the criminal law.) If GPL makes it possible to labour for a better world, it is freedom.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
I am about to release an app which requires a library I use for much of my work. Suppose I release this app under GPL, and the library under BSD? I would like to be able to use this library in the future in commercial software. I don't care if other people do as well. (Can I release the same library, without changes, under a commercial license if I've already placed it under GPL? I would not expect that to affect the copies that were previously distributed under GPL.)
On the other hand, I'd like to release the app itself under the GPL. I don't expect major forks, I don't want it to get hijacked in any sense, and I want any patched versions to remain free for everybody.
How many times do we have to go through this?
Why not set up "flamewars.slashdot.org", where people can debate GPL vs. BSD, KDE vs GNOME, RedHat vs. Debian etc etc until they are blue in the face.
As usual, 99% of responses will be from fanboys who can't even find the source code on their boxes.
What the author is missing is that the resentment from the BSD community comes not from the success of GPL license itself, but from the slanting GPL community makes of FreeBSD.
GNU org itself has been part of this. The effect is so widespread that even the author, who seems to be quite unbiased, shows signs of it!
You can see that the way he casually references the claim-credit clause as "advertising clause", an expression intended to reinforce the false notion that advertisement of a software containing BSD-licensed code must include the credits of that code. Not only this is false, but GPL advocacy sites have use this argument to downplay the BSD license even though not all of them even contain such clause!
The strong reaction seen nowadays from the BSD community toward the licensing issue is trying to dispell this and others false claims.
The author, otherwise, is very objective and precise in it's arguments. One thing, though, caught my attention and needs to be corrected.
Though it's true that there are people in the BSD community that associate the GPL with the "communist" ideas expressed in the GNU Manifesto, there is a couple of problems GPL imposes on commercial software which BSD doesn't have.
One problem is that GPL code not only insures that the GPLed code will remain available, but also calls for all other code added to that to be licensed as GPL. For business which rely on proprietary code as their raison d'etre, this prevents the use of GPL code. Notice that many on the BSD community do work on such companies, and while they actively contribute to BSD-centered efforts, they do need to keep some of the code to themselves.
Another problem is that while GPL code can easily be used on commercial "package" softwares, that is not true of turn-key and rommable systems, such as net appliances. This is not the same thing as distributing documentation... you have to ensure that the product is made available with the correct version of the source code, which can be quite expensive.
I hope this helps further clarify the issue. I'd like to thank the author for what is, otherwise, an unbiased, concise and very clear description of this "conflict".
(8-DCS)
BSD license requires that it's terms be preserved. This is a restriction to the distribution of the code and, as such, forbidden by the GPL.
BSD license, with or without claim-credit clause, CANNOT be GPLed.
(8-DCS)
Yep! You got it all right!
...
/M@is -
That was under a list of misconceptions.
I agree with you.
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. 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.
The BSD license is also much, much less complicated:
$ wc -l bsd-style-copyright
27 bsd-style-copyright
$ wc -l
339
The BSD license has far fewer catches and companies that are interested in being able to profit off of their product will be happily able to integrate that into their source code provided the integration and distribution goes under the above conditions.
There are a few `mistakes' that have gotten out somehow that the BSD license is not what it is. Here they are:
This is not true. The original author is the one who gets the credit for it, not the person to make the last change.
The BSD license allows for distribution with less catches and it allows the licenser (usually the author) to decide whether or not he or she wants to distribute the source code.
Hopefully this clears up some of the misunderstandings that people on the GPL side may be having.
Hmm... Semantics. Legalities. This is all very confusing. I guess a prime example of a GPL project that was re-licensed is ssh. ssh1 is still being developed under the original GPL release license. However, the new ssh2 was rereleased under a proprietary license by DataFellows -- I am assuming as a direct result of the original author of the ssh1 selling the copyrights to DataFellows. What I wonder, at this point, is how much of the GPL contributed code to ssh1 was or could be incorporated in the ssh2 (or any other theoretical software package for that matter)? My assumption is that none of the GPL contributed code, that given to the original author of the package, could be used for a relicensing of the package. Imagine all of the contributing authors who would be out of the benefit or profit of relicensing the software, because they, in fact, are authors -- correct? Are their rights compromised at this point?
What I COULD understand is that if someone were to take a GPL project and build an additional module, which was proprietarily licensed, and sell that. This itself may be beneficial to all parties involved. The original authors retain their rights and the new author has benefited from using a GPL software from which to build his/her own additions from.
^chewie
I believe you are taking the argument a bit too far here. If I were to follow your logic, I could easily say that it is unacceptable to distribute source as printed out text files, because the coders surely do not work on the code in hard copy. There is a difference between code obfuscation and just changing formats to transfer a document. If I convert from digital to analog format to send a document over my modem, is that obfuscating the code or merely transporting it?
Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
If this debate keeps up, I'm going to have to resurrect an old NCR Tower XP I have just to get the posting I made to gnu.general (I think) in 1991 with the above title off of the disk. This debate has been raging for years, and will continue to do so as long as there are those who believe that software communism is a Good Idea. (Yes, I do believe that the GNU Manifesto reads remarkably like the Communist Manifesto.) Personally, I believe that there's a place for proprietary software, and even for object-code-only software - if for no other reason that releasing the source code to a box with embedded programming can destroy any competitive advantage, and so makes the box that much harder to sell to folks with the millions of dollars needed to get something new off the ground. In RMS' utopia, there would be less software created and less neat things invented. It's really that simple.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Of course, whether you consider that good or bad is up to you. Personally, I believe that a simple, sweeping, blanket `good' or `bad' label is oversimplifying a complex matter. Obviously both licences are doing something that their authors want them to do. But let's disabuse ourselves of this maliciously deceptive `free' thing right here and now. The word was redefined by the FSF to mean something no one but lawyers, pharisees, and related zealots would find intuitive. It's a mean trick.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Drop the word `free'. It's a lie. One can continue to repeat clever sophistries until the sun goes nova, and continue to be very clever, very punny, even technically correct in at least one particular circumstance. But one is still completely misleading to virtually all the world.
A few days I was asked by a regular person -- not even a script kiddie -- whether [random software] was `freeware, or just shareware'. See that? Here's a simple test. Go out and ask 20 teenagers whether free software (which they'll call freeware) ever costs anything, and you'll find that 100% of them say, `What, are you crazy?'
Recently, I witnessed a newcomer to the net asked an oldtimer about what possible licence was on a piece of software the latter had written. The sum total of the oldtimer's response was "Do whatever you'd like with it," which surprised the newcomer, who obviously wasn't used to truly free software (unlike the FSF's insidiously deceiptful notion of the same) But what a pleasant change! Where did that complete generosity disappear to?
Let's face it. We've lost this battle. We have to stop hurting our own goals by beating a dead horse. We must instead use a real word in the way that everyone understands it. Of course gratis and libre are lovely distinctions, pero por desgracia, ocurre que todo el mundo no entiende castellano. :-)
Instead of gratis, perhaps we should say cost-free. See how clean and simple, how unambiguous that word is?
Instead of libre, we might say something more like hackable; that's my own original preference, but it has its own attendant difficulties. Less charged alternatives include changeable or mutable or legible or open source or as source code or in some cases, perhaps unrestricted. Historically, we used freely redistributable as distinct from public domain, but that's a problem term because it has the `free' bug, and doesn't specify source code.
I may not be certain about what the right word is, but I'm completely certain what the wrong word is. The wrong word is `free'. Please, please, PLEASE drop these word-games that only cause everyone on the outside to get confused just so that those on the inside get to gloat about how much smarter they are than the rest of the word. It's long past time to face the fact that we've lost the battle for this word, and perhaps time to realize that it was always the wrong word right from the get-go.
Free software is great. Don't destroy it with restrictive licences.
More importantly, when coercion is involved, all personal responsibility, all moral choice is removed. You cannot extoll the virtue of someone who adds publicly available code to an existing GPL codebase. There is no virtue invovled, for he had no choice in the matter. Without choice, there is no morality.
Contrast this with the individual who initially creates open source and gives it away to the world. `If you love something, set it free; if it returns to you...' comes to mind. If fixes and enhancements come back to him, then the author of those updates has himself made a moral decision. How much more precious a thing this is than the prisoner who did as he was coerced to do!
It is clear which man has made a moral choice, and which one has not. Coercion is fundamentally opposed to morality.
Ever see what happens when someone tries to combine something like the proprietary Oracle libraries and something like GNU DBM or GNU readline or GNU getopts into one program? Do you know what happens?
It goes boom. This is not a pretty picture. In fact, the developer is forbidden from doing this. Gosh, that's just wonderful, eh?
I suspect it's being nice and cool because it is a rather volatile issue and could spark a holy war if people don't remain calm about it. Besides, most people probably can see that there are uses for different types of liscenses.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
I doubt that was the intention. The point is that if there weren't a free standard available, each would have their own proprietary standard (remember when Netscape and MS each had their own version of HTML?) and there would be MSNet and SunNet and... instead of the Internet.
And indiviual programmers would have a lot of trouble turning out that infrastructure. But Sun and MS and Apple didn't do it either. It took a combined effort of many, and they got lots of money for doing it. And then they released all of their work. It was BSD who produced the infrastructure, for use by everyone (including companies). It wasn't created just for BSD, it wasn't created just for Open Source programmers, it was done for everyone's benefit.
As for being sued by a company usurping BSD liscensed software and then suing anyone who has that BSD source, you don't understand the concept at all. If the code already exists under the BSD liscense, and you use it and some company who has used it in proprietary software sues you, you just have to show the court the BSD liscensed copy you used. Just because that company used the code, doesn't remove it from the public domain. Yes, they've sued for less, and yes there were 'look n feel' lawsuits. And very few of those succeeded.
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
I seem to remember that a few years ago (maybe as much as five to ten years ago) a vendor advertised a tool called "Shroud for C" in magazines like the C Users Journal. This product basically was an obfuscator. It's function was to strip all comments and globally replace all variables with horribly difficult to remember meaningless strings.
The purpose of this product was to make it possible to distribute source code that could be built and linked with other code (extendable) without it being possible for people you didn't want to poke around in the code and figure it out. Unless there are readability standards imposed in any licencing sceme (i.e. the GPL) I think this would be an excellent vehicle for organizations hostile to the GPL to incorporate GPL'd code in their products, extend, the code, but totally snarl up and render unusable the source they are required to release with their product. It seems like the inevitable endpoint of arrogant licenses like the GPL.
When people start distributing code in such a fashion, what can the gnu people do in response? Establish mandatory requirements that comments be left in code? Establish standards for meaningful variable names in all code? That doesn't sound very 'free' to me. Where would it end?
Does anybody know if "Shroud" products like this are still available? Is there an "open source" version of a utility like this available? *grin*
If all Mazda dealers received an engine from Mazda and could pick and choose what chassis, trim, dashboard, etc. from any other party they wanted to include in building it up into a car, then I would consider a car dealership a fork.
/etc as there are distributions of Linux, and they're different from each other in somewhat frustrating ways.
As it is, every Linux distributor produces a fork. There are as many versions of
GPL is infectious for a reason. BSD allows taking the code behind the certain for re-packaging for a reason. Both have their places in the New Economy.
It is good to have (at least the choice of) a solid infrastructure that is free and open, and that is guaranteed to remain so. Nobody forces you to use it, but it is there nevertheless. Linux is one of those bedrocks that one can build upon, and GPL is the constitution that promises to keep things that way. "Great!", I hear you say.
Now, BSD allows and to large extent promotes similar, but not identical, sharing of sweat, blood and ideas. While in the GPL world there are no trade secrets or proprietary IP rights, the BSD license allows companies to keep their modified code away from competition. "Excellent!", I hear again.
And you're right on both accounts. GPL allows us to have a safe foundation upon which to build the New Economy together with many basic services, and some really fancy ones too. BSD on the other hand allows the profit-oriented classes to build for-fee services on the free and open GPL infrastructure safe in the knowledge that they will always have full access to the operational details of the infrastructure. BSD works for building bedrocks as well (as the thriving *BSD/OS market shows), but I personally wouldn't like to see any backstage-developed BSD/OS variant becoming THE dominant platform (cause Billy would just buy the rights with his weekly sodapop allowance, name the OS BS-winDows and we'd all be whisked back to the 80's faster than Gates can deny saying - on camera - that "DOJ has no teeth").
These licenses don't mix, but then again neither do you mix your pizza dough with the toppings. Yet the result tastes great and is blissfully filling.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?