Slashdot Mirror
Berkeley removes Advertising Clause
Matthew N. Dodd was the first to write with the news that UC-Berkeley has changed the *BSD license. Effective immediatly, the 3rd clause, that which requires acknowledgement of UCB in all advertising is null and void. Click below to read the letter from UCB.
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley "
But I do mind them charging me for mine.
The reason why you see fewer versions of BSD UNIX is that it is less fragmented than Linux. Part of the reason for this is that the BSD license encourages sharing rather than appropriation of code. This greater spirit of cooperation naturally leads to fewer splits, and those splits that do occur are usually due to a strong difference in priorities that warrants a specialized fork.
--Brett Glass
The question is one of injury. You can't undo the GPL because others have contributed code and now hold copyright to the work under that license. They have valid claims on rights retained in the GPL and would be clearly injured by a retroactive change.
However, Berkely owns their good name. No one can properly affix any right to themselves based on Berkey's retention of their right to require the Ad. So, Berkely can waive such a right at any time. Nobody can be injured, except perhaps Berkely, and they are free to accept that. Even reto.
The wording of the letter is clear. The withdraw is retro. "Effective immediately...no longer require...acknowledgement...".
This kind of thought sounds more and more Stalinist.
they make money thru support instead of software which imho is the way ahead. you should read some of ESR's stuff before appearing like an idiot.
Geez, Brett, are you still going around beating this dead horse? Face it, GPL is winning in the market. The many businesses that make money off of GPL code don't think it's "anti-business". The reason GPL is winning is because customers want the right to source code and the right to modify and redistribute it. The business models around most BSD-licenced code bases are to create proprietary modifications and give the customers code which does _not_ give them any of the BSD license priveleges themselves. The business model around GPL code is to give the customer the actual source under the actual terms of the GPL, and make money through branding, support, services, etc. These business models are not the result of chance, but of the fact that if you release BSD-licensed code publicly, your competitors can make proprietary changes you don't have access to, and therefore have a better product. With GPL code that can't happen. Thus, if you are working with a BSD code base, your only sane choice is to close the source if you're going to be selling something, even if you ethically felt that giving out the source was the right thing.
I'd be curious to hear some anecdotal evidence
detailing the misdeeds of the "unscrupulous
corporate types" and their quest to steal free
code. I mean it must happen quite
consistently. Especially the part about people
"stealing the code" and getting rich off someone
else's hard work.
Yes.
You've used the GPL to fork a software project.
Are you proud of that fact?
Since everyone else seems to not have a sense of humor (maybe you were too close to the real thing.. ;) ) I thought that I'd mention that this is possibly the funniest thing I've read all week.
Hopefully someone will moderate it up, but the level of sophistication with regard to satire seems to be low already and dropping fast around here..
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Come on Brett, you know better to argue on /.
:-( The gift with the least strings attached is BSD. You can do what you WANT with the code.
It boils down to whom do you trust, what has more rights, and is the code a gift?
Do you trust that the people who take the code will submit the improvements BACK to the community that gave it. If you have no faith in others, go GPL.
Who has more rights, a human to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with the tool of sourcecode, or the sourcecode to remain published for all to see. If you believe the rights of humans to choose OVER the rights of a tool, then pick BSD.
Do you really want the code to be a gift?
The true gift is public domain. No one seems to give gifts.
wait.. UCB? UCB!! OH MY GOD!! THE UPRIGHT CITIZENS BRIGADE CREATED BSD!! THEY'RE OUT TO CONTROL US ALL!! so THAT's where the satan icon came from!!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Isn't the goal of the BSDL to allow people to protect their changes to the body of code in any way they see fit? If the way they see fit to do so is by GPL'ing the modified version, who are you to judge that this is somehow more evil than putting the modified version under a proprietary, hide-the-source license? The GPL version does not take away the original BSD licensed version of the code any more than a proprietary licensed version would.
The developers it would attract are already engaged in various Gnu projects and Linux development itself.
;^>)
It doesn't matter much to me what people claim about their code if they can't prove it. If they can, more power to them. If they're nice people, they'll say what they did, if not, it can probably be figured out.
(Anyway, everyone with a brain knows NetBSD is better than FreeBSD and BSDOS put together.
(... please observe the smiley, kiddies.)
Do you have a
bugg wrote:
;^>
(err, i say freebsd but this applies to all OSes that come from BSD)
Nice save.
Do you have a
RMS is being a bit disingenuous, then, because unlike the BSD and XFree licenses, GPL doesn't allow you to pass the software onto your friends unless you fulfill certain conditions.
This is a Very Good Thing for the GPL and the spread of its mostly-free software, but it doesn't make the GPL more moral than BSD, only more pragmatic.
There's nothing more sickening than seeing someone blast "Open Source" because it's pragmatic rather than moral -- and then seeing them turn around and praise the GPL.
-Billy (I'm not a coward -- Slashdot won't let me log in!!!) "William Tanksley"
> in fact, it is more insidious in that it targets ANYONE who wants to make a living selling
> software. Richard Stallman has stated, publicly, that this is the EXPLICIT intent of the GPL.
The explicit intent of the GPL is to target proprietary software, not software which is sold for a price.
Stop FUDing.
What if anything now prevents *BSD code being slurped up into GPL?
Great. A major complaint of GPL supporters has been removed from the BSDL, and what do slashdot readers do? Post a load of smartassed comments about how "We should GPL BSD, ha ha."
Even if one could GPL BSD, which you couldn't, it doesn't mean one should do it, and throw ethics out the window. To do so would be showing an utter lack respect for the creators of the software.
-lx
The thing is, freedom when taken to extremes isn't a Good Thing. For example, a person has the right to hunt for his or her own food. That is freedom. However, that same person cannot hunt and kill another human being, even for food. Why is this? Because killing another human being impinges on the freedom of that other person.
The point: the GPL basically states that you have certain rights. The same rights, more or less, as those granted with the BSD license. The GPL goes further, however, by stating that you must give everyone else the same rights you have, and consequently that they must give everyone else those same rights. BSD doesn't do this, and it's BSD's only critical flaw. When I get a piece of BSD software, I have certain rights. However, because of BSD's license, I can theoretically deny those same rights to other people. This isn't a Good Thing at all.
Thing with RMS is, besides being a great hacker and heroe of free software, he also has become a hippocrite due to his bruised ego for not having had the final success with his _complete_ GNU OS.
He constantly insists on Linux being called GNU/Linux to get some of the respect for his work he undoubtedly deserves - and in my opinion often gets - but doesnt perceive to receive (pardon my wording, its kinda late and Im not a native speaker...)
Doing so, he makes the free software world less free by denying me the right to freely call software what I want to call it, and what seemingly most people inside and outside the free software world have agreed to call it.
Besides, if we apply his own reasoning (it includes a lotta code from us) to his own pet, namely the too-little-too-late HURD, we have to call it Linux/HURD - next to all of the code for hardware drivers in the HURD has been taken from the respective linux-drivers, as a Debian GNU/HURD developer explained to me the other day...
I wonder how many of you have read the GPL .. it requires interactive programs to state that the software is licensed under the GPL .. an advertising clause couldn't be worse as they seem to both serve the same purpose .. other than that the two licenses have very different purposes .. one is to ensure your code is free and remains open and to prevent inclusion into anything that isn't under the same terms .. which isn't a really bad idea but eliminates commerical possibility .. which makes it "free" in the freedom of some unnamed software developer but restricted still .. strangely the other provides the obvious copyright and disclaimer of warranty and beyond that is nearly in the public domain .. it has been written and the author probably had fun doing it so anyone can use it for anything they want .. and previously credit was to be given where credit is due. one is sort of a passive "free" and the other is an active "free" but some would say intrusive.. also another fairly popular free software package released under a license similar to the one used by BSD which is Apache .. in the case there i would think that style of (non)restriction serves it quite well
Maybe... But, you could look at it this way: You might think you are denying someone else these all-important rights, but in reality, it would only apply to your modifications.
Before anyone goes ballistic, I understand that the license doesn't say this in any way. However, as long as the original source is still around, anyone can grab the original and have the same rights you had/have. The only exception: your modifications.
Just because you can fork off a new BSD derivative and deny people access to the source code doesn't mean people have to use it. There will have to be a good reason (new features, improvements, etc.) for people to choose it. If people are paying for BSDI when a free version is available, that's their choice. (Besides, how much is Red Hat worth today? Don't think they didn't "profit from" somebody's work. They may "give back to the community", but I haven't seen millions of dollars or millions of dollars worth of code coming from there.)
If you're troubled about Windows, Mac, Solaris, etc., don't think they're doing so well just because a little BSD code got in there. Though BSD folks might think so. ;) Realistically, a lot of work has gone into these operating systems, and they offer different features than xBSD.
- mkleehammer
> I simply cannot fathom what's in your confused > mind. You lambast the people who choose to take > advantage of the very freedom you praise about > the BSD license, all in the same breath! This is a truly absurd statement. By your logic, we should congratulate a murderer for exercising his or her freedom (ability) to purchase a weapon and end someone else's life. Or we should applaud someone who signs a note to waive their right to vote. Of course we don't want someone to sell away their freedom, however that IS their choice. One hopes that people will take advantage of their freedoms and act in that same Spirit of Freedom, however that is not always the case. The Spirit of Freedom intrinsically allows people to relinquich their freedoms. The community as a whole probably wishes everyone would work in the Spirit of Freedom. The GPL forces everyone to work like this, which is an inherent contradiction. The BSDL realizes that in the true Spirit of Freedom, you can't force someone to act in the Spirit of Freedom.
Berkeley owns its good name and can waive its right to advertising at any time. Even on existing and already published works. Even if it includes the works of others that published under the BSD.
On July 22, 1999 Berekely deleted paragraph 3 by way of public memo. At that time they waived their right to require you place the Ad in their name. They clearly have the right to do so. It affects all existing code.
What it doesn't affect are BSD like licenses that have other terms.
Um, I've read the BSD license. It says: "1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer." That sure looks to me like you can't just replace the BSD license with the GPL. And including the terms of the BSD license may violate paragraph 6 of the GPL. The most you could do is create a new BSD/GPL hybrid license that isn't self-conflicting.
This is the one thing I hate about Linux and its groupies. So many greedy, snotty, self-rightous #&@$! "Free - forever." Have you actually *read* the GPL? Maybe I've always had a different definition for freedom, maybe that's why ESR had to make a witty statement to help define what freedom means in the GPL. Who knows.. its Orwellian. "Freedom is Slavery."
And before I get bogged with hateful messages, some script kiddy trying to send me a flash email, etc, let me say one thing. I do know people who are not like what I despise (above) who favor Linux, I am on two LUGs, I even tried to get to LinuxWorld, and I have multiple (4) distributions of Linux. I also have over a dozen Linux books. But I also prefer *BSD's culture, no matter what ESR and RMS like to demean it as. There, kill me. You zealots are going to be the ones who make 1984 a reality.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
At last, we can start using sufficently meritorious BSD code in Linux, where it will be safe - and Free - forever.
That's Wonderful!
Wasn't this the major complaint about that license?
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
BSD is a proven well head for Sun, HP, Microsoft, SCO, and every other software vendor. You code BSD, they build products using it. BSD was the conduit for goverment funded software research. Fine.
I am not a "blind follower" of the GPL. I, and other GPL contributers are capitalists in every sense of the word. They've figured out there is zero potential return on their investment under BSD. They know they can't compete on the basis of selling their software product for cash. So, the GPL allows them to sell their software product for profit in the form of services. They get bug fixes, enhancements, and noteriaty in return for their investment.
Under a capitalistic system, people who perform any service without maximizing their potential return are failures, by definition. Users of the GPL reviewed their options, and took an action they believe maximized their return.
So, what economic system do you work under that associates bright thinking with giving your profitable work away for a guarenteed zero return?
We all already know that NT4.0 has BSD code in it... are they going to start putting more in and claiming it for their own? I don't like it.
Do you Gentoo!?
>Man you say one bad thing about GPL around here and everybody acts >like you just shot they're dog. I believe the point he was trying to >make was that that WAS why he doesn't use the GPL. Which while being >a fairly useless aside, was still an aside.
Maybe it's because we don't have any use for those who's only interest in the BSD licence seems to be the amount of code they can steal er, "borrow" under it. In case you haven't noticed, the people who really seem to have the biggest problems with the GPL are for the most part windows shareware programers. Wonder why? (snicker)
Kernel options...
You get my point.Hmm.. I wonder if RMS wants the BSD license GPL'ed now.....
I'm not sure if I understand you, but you seem to be saying that people who BSDL their code really don't want other people to take advantage of it with a less free license. But this contradicts several of the assertions made by BSDL advocates in this forum that specifically say they don't mind if this happens.
For the record I have absolutely nothing against the BSD license. What irritates me is people who advocate the BSDL as being "more free" on the one hand, and then turn around and go ape-shit when someone wants to include BSD code in a GPL program.
I've actually seen one person suggest that a clause be added to the BSD license that specificly prohibits use in GPL code! Hey pal, you've just reinvented the GPL, moron.
Why is such an obviously idiotic comment moderated up?
RMS requested that people acknowledge their operating systems as being essentially the GNU OS with a Linux kernel, hence "GNU/Linux" systems. He did not legally mandate that this be done.
The BSD license, on the other hand, legally mandated that Berkeley be credited in all advertising materials. Even your 3-line classified ad had to waste one of the lines crediting Berkeley.
The difference should be obvious.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...Well, maybe not perfect, but it's pretty libertarian of 'em. ;)
Geeky modern art T-shirts
It is easy. He said "his name." Now, remember, this removes the advertisement clause in UCB's BSD code, not others. He has every right, if some smart allic took his BSD'd code and GPL'd it, to take them to court. GNU attacks BSDL because it can not be subliscensed (not reliscensed) by the GPL due to the advertisement clause. His work thus cannot be GPL'd. This is why many BSD users are angry. You are stealling the code and rights of the author, not subliscensing it.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Sure you did. You did so by choosing to release code under the BSD "licence" That's the hypocracy of the BSD licence.
Free in every sense of the word. BSD has it right. they are not promoting an agenda... they are just making good software and giving it away. Very noble of them, I think.
<SIG>
I think I lost my work ethic while surfing the web. If you find it, please email it to crispy@crotch.caltech.edu.
</SIG>
My sig has a broken link in it.
They kind of makes me think of the borg, mad when they can't assimulate, and take all credit for the plusses of who/what they did assimulate.
(yeah, yeah, yeah.. so at one point I watched star trek rather then the useless dribble usually on. shoot me.)
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
We truly live in an ideal world when people have nothing better to worry about than whether a university must be acknowledged in some ads.
You could never re-integrate the fork, unless it happened under the now GPLed version.
Saving a weakly protected "free" software product, and ensuring that it forever remains Free is a worthwhile and laudable goal. I'd call that a "rescue", not a fork.
I, for one, think this is a great move. It cut down the number of people who are spooked by BSD code and licenses.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
It does not. Libertarian != Stalinist
You blatantly confuse terms.
Ummm, you seem to be confusing everything he said including his unmistakable sarcasm...
Anonymous Coward wrote:
being Liberals (== socialists == Communists == Stalinists)...
chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
1. As much as he whines, RMS isn't legally obligating anyone to use the GNU/ prefix ... it's certainly not written into the GPL
2. Any Linux distribution I've seen is the GNU system with some BSD tools and a Linux kernel. It's certainly not inappropriate to call it GNU/Linux.
3. The BSD tools are a minimal part of the system, though -- if you put the GNU tools on a FreeBSD system, you don't get GNU/FreeBSD -- it works the other way around, too.
4. This also means that if someone took FreeBSD and replaced only the kernel with Linux, you could legitimately call it BSD/Linux. (and probably ought to, to avoid confusion!)
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
Of course they have to achnowledge Linus' trademark. That's one of the basic requirements that Linus has to enforce to retain his trademark... if he doesn't then the term "Linux" can lose its protected status and fall into the public domain.
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
If the additions are useful and they won't give them to us, someone will duplicate it in a free form. However, if the proprietary group couldn't have made the additions proprietary in the first place, don't think they would naturally have written them and given them away. The idea might have been lost for good. Let them make want they want. They have an economic incentive to try things. The things that work eventually make it into free source.
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
- mkleehammer
- mkleehammer
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
- mkleehammer
- mkleehammer
Certain interpretations of the GPL can be taken as meaning a Windows version is impossible anyways (linking clause might be taken to mean other DLL source has to be included, such as the MFC source, availability of tools,etc)
This is great news for BSDL, which already was, IMHO, the most free license of all the major "free" licenses. I also never thought the advertisement clause was that big of deal. I don't see how GPL could be considered more free when it doesn't give you the freedom to do certain things with the code.
As for people's fears that some evil company will take BSDL code and proprietarize/commercialize it, and for their assertions that GPL prevents that, bah! If _I_ were an evil software company, I wouldn't *care* whether the code I stole was GPL'ed or QJX'ed or whatever. I would just steal it and meld it with my own code, with only a few trustworthy programmers having to know.
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
- mkleehammer
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
- mkleehammer
So, if P3 of his license says "You must print 'Made by Joe' when the program starts", then fine. Its incompatible with the GPL, and unlikely to be used by anyone else either.
Don't be stupid, please. Read some copyright law. If you write a piece of code, you can distribute it to different people under as many different licenses as you want. You can GPL it, then later sell a modified version in a proprietary product, as long as you wrote the code.
I guess requested means throwing tantrums and not answering questions from anyone that refers to Linux as such. Maybe he'll do better and in the next version of the GPL, he will say all software must be prefixed with GNU. That way he can legally satisfy his ego instead of constatly bothering the world with his rants.
Don't play with fire. Don't play with Guns. Don't play with license terms you don't understand.
Actually that's exactly what you do. You can release the damned thing and change the license. What do you think Microsoft did with the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack they used in Win2k?
umm.. its called 'helping the community.' Maybe BSD people see the community as more then a few people saying we like open source. Maybe they include all the people on Windows, Apple, comercial UNIXes, software companies, etc. The companies realise they have to add an incentive to make you pay for their version (add more features, add support).
Ask youself. What's more productive. One piece of software that does a job adaquately but can never be recycled, or code that can be. Every real hacker, and eventually Linus, said its better to steal code then re-write it. Oh, and what would you feel more comfortable with, if Microsoft made their own networking stack or used BSD's? BSD users never complained, they pointed it as how good their code was. GPL people seem to call it stealling, but then do the same. Its hypocritical. It could be legal, but if you set your morals, someday bother to live by them.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Why would us BSD folks want to use inferior buggy code ?
If ego has nothing to do with your coding then why restrict use with the GPL. Use the BSD liscense. So people can re-sell your code. You didn't code it because of ego so what's it matter?
The BSD license. An elegant weapon for a more civilized time. And while we all still admire Master Kenobi, mature and at one with the universe, there is still a certain fun in having a younger person grab the lightsaber and run screaming towards some Imperial target.
On a side note, would it be possible to create a Dual Standard license? Essentially, you release the same code under two license options. Any changes that get back to you get issued again under both.
After all, different header comments might even make it different source code. Don't you think?
If those changes originate with the author, people who won't use GPL for fear of contamination can use it. Most of them probably will give back changes. Sure, not all...
People who won't use anything not GPL for fear of someone stealing their toys would have the same thing.
The trick would be in ammending a license somewhere to allow the original author of Code A to use changes made to their code under the second, non-GPL license. It's a bit of a special case, but I think it has a lot of potential for growth.
Even if your code is GPL, the slimeballs can sue anyway! Doesn't matter if the code if GPL, BSD or BFD. Close but no cigar...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
>I started complaining about the GPV - and coined the term - in 1991 >(or was it 1990? Damn, I gotta find a copy of that post). I didn't >even load Windows - any version - on a computer until 1996. The >license has always been broken, and some of us have been pointing >that out since the beginning.
So you were a *DOS* share/crippleware programmer. Big deal. The GPL is becoming more popular because people depise the BSD licence. The fact that SGI choose the GPL over the BSD licence to release their code under is proof that it's the BSD license that's seriously broken despite what idiots like yourself claim. In fact I really suspect that's the real reason the illusion of change was made in the BSD license agreement.
HOWEVER, this does not prevent them from granting blanket permission to anyone to use UC Berkeley-Copyrighted code under the old license (this does not include things such as Apache for example but would affect things such as ash, the BSD /bin/sh) under the new one.
AFAIK, the FreeBSD project at least is already using a 3-clause BSD license for new code, but they could not previously grant use of the original BSD code under those terms---not that it really matters to them from a legal standpoint, but the advertising clause IS somewhat inconvenient and ineffectual IMO. Where this change REALLY benefits anyone (and the reason Richard Stallman was pushing for it) is in terms of GPL compatibility. The new BSD license is compatible with the GPL. This means libreadline linked bash, among other things.
Please, go right on ahead. Re-release it under GPL and call it LinuxBSD. I'm sure no one in the FreeBSD camp will be stiff necked about it. But remember this, software is more important than its license. Don't overlook the fact that FreeBSD is a strong project.
Read the subject
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
IANAL (me-too)
But I don't think you're correct. I believe that you can change an existing license, but if your rights as a licensee are diminished by a change and the license didn't explicitly allow for changes to it, you are not bound by any changes that diminish your rights.
With this change, I don't think anyone can argue that their rights were diminished (barred crazy judges) so this is effectively a change to the license.
Perhaps a real lawyer can give a more definitive word on this.
EJB
er, duh, it makes sense: to be smitten (smitted ?) is to be attacked, so you can be attacked with love (more corectly to have an attack of love) or you can be attacked in the meaning of origainal post.
this space unintentionally left blank
The BSD license permits someone to add new code to existing BSD code, and then to add a new license, as long as the original notice is kept. If you think that it is wrong for someone to use this permission, it follows that you think BSD licensing is wrong.
BSDers don't care at all if the license on the derivative work says "All rights reserved", no copying or distribution, pay thousands of dollars, go to jail if you break it. But they scream, scream, scream if the new license says "GPL". Why is this?
Please note: I don't want to change your sacred license. I got my degree at Berkeley, and I produced vast amounts of free software with a license just like what BSD is now (we never had the advertising clause). But if someone made a derivative work of my code and put the GPL on it, I wouldn't object in any way.
BTW, most of this is applicable to all licenses, including the GPL.
Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:
"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."
There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test.
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)
Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.
Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site is at the Library of Congress.
Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net
Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF
U. S. Copyright Office
Library of Congress
The Fair Use Test
I don't suppose it's entered your tiny little 4004 of a brain that it's within the realm of possiblity that people can object to the GPV for reasons of principle, has it?
As it happens, I have never written a piece of shareware. What software I have written and released was either released under the same terms as the software of which it was a modification (as in, for example, my adaptation of the KA9Q TCP/IP suite to work with the Data General One laptop's nonstandard serial hardware), or else under a BSDish license (do as you like with it, just don't claim it as your own).
You'll get a lot farther along in this world if you'll quit assuming the worst of others' motives on exactly zero evidence.
The fact that SGI choose the GPL over the BSD licence to release their code under is proof that it's the BSD license that's seriously broken despite what idiots like yourself claim.
I suspect the value judgment you're claiming never entered anyone's mind at SGI; rather, the lawyers took one look at the situation and decided that using any other license than the GPV for code to be integrated into Linux created a legal minefield they'd much rather stay away from. That's the lawyerly thing to do.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
> given the facts that the sourcetrees of the BSD's are more closed than the average Linux sourcetree.
What on earth are you talking about? I get the source on the CD, I can change it, I can submit it, I can get it accepted, or I can fork the tree and distribute the changed version as my own. How is this closed at all? Linus doesn't take every last kernel hack everyone submits to him, yunno. Sometimes his right-hand-man Alan Cox has to maintain a forked version for months.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> Without careful butt-covering, someone could take your public domain code, hang theircopyright notice on it, and claim it as their own.
The phrase "your public domain code" is an oxymoron. No one owns PD code, and no one *can* claim ownership of PD code. You can stick a wrapper around PD code and call it your own, but you can't prevent anyone else from using the original PD code.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Please describe what 'GNU' stands for. Do not use any acronyms in your answer. I kinda like GPV :) I might use that from now on.
The GPL is not "winning in the market." Linux -- which is only one GPLed product -- has a larger installed base than BSD UNIX not because it is GPLed but rather because the BSD camp is not doing effective marketing or evangelism. This is a situation that's ripe to be corrected. Of the business models you mention above, the one that is based on the BSD license promotes competition, while the one based on the GPL precludes it. (You also make several provably false statements above -- among them that the BSD license "requires" keeping source private.) In fact, the GPL is anti-competitive and anti-business, and the long-term business prospects of any company which creates or sells GPLed code are poor. --Brett Glass
G N U L I X
:)
(I'm gonna kill my 2 score aren't I?)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Obviously I don't understand the purpose of the BSD license very well, then. I had always heard (mainly from the BSD'ers), that the whole point of the BSD license as opposed to the GPL is that BSD allows BSD'd code to become non-free. If this isn't the case, *IS* there a difference between the BSD and GPL anymore? It seems that what was touted as the one major freedom of the BSDL is a freedom that BSD'ers either want to reject or invalidate when someone wants to EXERCISE that freedom.
You've done very good research, but it seems to me that other than the GPL's requirements that source be made available, there's not too much difference between the GPL and the BSDL -- if BSDL'd code CAN'T be made proprietary, I fail to see the charm of a license that once bragged about being "truly free" because licensed software could be made non-free. Even if source isn't distributed, anyone can decompile, modify, and re-distribute a BSD's program.. the GPL just goes the extra inch and requires that source be distributed.
Hardly grounds for a holy war!!
I've read ESR's propaganda -- and propaganda it is. --Brett Glass
perhaps I should have read the GPL before spouting off... :)
anyway, I could still "add" a GPL like licens, if I wanted to...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The intent of the GPL, as stated EXPLICITLY in Stallman's essay "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," is to destroy competition and to prevent programmers from making a living by programming. GPLed software targets ALL software that's sold for a price -- period. GPLed software cannot itself be sold; only a physical copy of it can be sold. And that's a bad business proposition, because -- with the rise of the Internet -- physcial copies will soon become unnecessary. --Brett Glass
Why in the world would you want to GPL someone's BSD code? You may not agree with the original author's choice for using BSD, but it's still his choice. To even suggest adding to or changing the license is an incredible feat of disrespect to the authors.
What if someone found a hidden but valid loophole in the GPL that allowed them release all of Debian under BSD?. You would be angry, livid, beside yourself, foaming at the mouth, losing bladder control, and in general having violent conniption fits. To paraphrase Tolkien, "Those having respect for living authors will use their license and no other."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
> I am surprised to hear it asserted that there is BSD licensed code in windows NT.
> Why didn't the credit to the UC Regents appear in NT commercials on TV ?
Because the claim credit clause isn't the advertising caluse that RMS makes it out to be. It is only invoked if they mention features specific to the UCB licensed software, or use of the software itself (e.g. "Provides a high quality BSD4.4-Lite2 based FTP client").
Most morons (including RMS) either can't, or explicitly pretend not to, for their own scurrulous reasons, make this disctinction.
-- A.C.
Bison (including the skeleton file) is distributed under the GPL, and a few years back, the FSF made a special exception for when the Bison skeleton file is outputted by Bison and placed into code; such code would not have to be subjected to the GPL.
You're pretty darn smarmy about your ideology, aren't you?
No. I was pointing out in a (hopefully) amusing sort of way that many libertarians (and/or people who call themselves "libertarians", but aren't) are pretty darn smarmy about their ideology.
I guess anybody who remains ideologically pure can afford to be so. Something having to do with their ideas never being tested in reality makes it affordable.
Well, that certainly applies to a lot of libertarians. Since never said anything to indicate what my "ideology" is (unless a distaste for groupthink counts as "ideology"), I'm really not sure why you're telling me about this. Unless you're just making conversation, of course . . . in which case, uh, how about them Red Sox?
Linux gives:
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
CHeers!
http://www.bombcar.com It's where it is at.
Fellowship 9/11
Of course, given that you haven't signed your message, I can't tell whether you might or not. ;-) --Brett Glass
...by removing the anti-business, anti-programmer, anti-competitive "copyleft" provisions from the GPL. Then, the last encumbrance to the universal usability of open source code will be lifted. --Brett Glass
Hello? Weren't you paying attention? He said, "Licensing terms are controlled exclusively by the copyright holder." That is a solid legal fact, and is not open to debate. Microsoft can use BSD code, but they cannot change the license. Linux can use BSD code, but cannot change the license. Only the copyright holder can change the license, and as you point out, changing the copyright holder is irrelevent because it wouldn't change. And yes, the *BSD license is more free, because it allows you to use the code without redistributing your changes. But that doesn't mean you can change the license.
For the same reasons you use the GPL in the first place!
What can you not do with the GPL that you can with the BSD? You can't not give someone the source to the program if they ask for it and you have given them the compiled form.
Now, a better question: Why would anyone want to use the BSD license for their code instead of the GPL? So other people can make changes, and not give them back?
It just doesn't make sense.
You blatantly confuse terms.
Thank you! That was my goal -- although it was "liberal" that I was equating with "stalinist", not "libertarian". Hopefully somebody got a chuckle out of it.
And, yes, I did once really and truly run into a self-described "libertarian" who quite seriously presented me with the equation "liberal == socialist == communist == stalinist", which struck me as one of the most amazing examples of intellectual dishonesty (or simple cretinism) that I've ever witnessed. It reminded me of R. J. Rushdoony's claim that since the word "law" is used to refer both to God's Law and to traffic laws, that therefore traffic laws are intended (by the Secular Humanists or somebody) to be accepted as equivalent to the word of God. Or something. That guy's kinda weird, if you ask me. What happens in countries where the dominant language uses different words for those two concepts? The appearance of logic in his claims would "softly and silently vanish away". Hmmph.
It's hard to grasp for people with a black-and-white worldview, but which one is better depends on your point of view.
If you believe in the principles of the FSF, I think you'll agree with me that the GPL is better.
If you want to write software that anyone can use for any purpose including making it un-free, etc. wihtout you having to worry over it a bit, then the BSD is now your license of choice.
If you're a bad-ass software company waiting to rip off the work of a bunch of smart kids with too much time on their hands, selling it, keeping the modified source secret and claiming you wrote the software yourself, I suppose you'd prefer the BSD too.
Then there's the practical part. It seems to me that the open source projects that attract most people, are most dynamic and most successful (linux kernel, linux utilities, gnome, gcc, gimp, etc. etc. [see www.fsf.org]) are GPL-based.
EJB
Isn't the BSD liscence supposed to allow you to change the licence. Why else give so few restrictions. It is not a loophole to change or add restrictions to it.
It is not like the GPL, where people expect that their irc clients will be used by Big Baddy folks like Microsoft. A lot of the people who wrote in support of the BSD licence (or maybe just one AC, i don't remember), said they would love a Big Baddy took their code and made a better product.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Charging me for my own work and the work of my friends is ridiculous. The GPL is the sane choice.
Sort of, but not exactly. I think it's fair to assume that deep down inside, BSDers and GPLers both would like to see open this and open that and all the mumbo jumbo in between. The BSDers seem to know this isn't the case and accept it while the GPLers are out force everyone into their "free" paradigm.
Incorrect. The GPL forces you to grant NEW rights -- rights to your own work -- which you may not want to grant. This is confiscatory and inappropriate. --Brett Glass
Why can't people debate whether GPL'ed software compares with BSD alternatives on technological merits instead of which has the better philosophy? If someone can show me that GPL'ed software is of a better quality than the BSD'ed stuff then maybe you can make a case that GPL is better for the world. I don't think anyone has made such a clear cut causal relationship between the license and software quality yet.
---
If said hypothetical author wanted assurance that his software remain "free", he would have chosen something different to develop under.
There are a great many "free" software licenses (not to mention the roll-your-own variety) which do slap restrictions on what restrictions you can place on redistribution of code you've modified. BSD is not one of them, as it takes the freedom of the recipient's use of thus-licensed software one step closer to being absolute.
While I don't see it as an issue of respect, as you seem to, I do believe this: If, given the myriad of prefab licensing options available and the option of creating your own you are yet unable to devine a set of terms which fits your personal taste, you henceforth command precisely zero respect in such matters.
Kid-proof tablet..
Isn't the BSD liscence supposed to allow you to change the licence.
But doing so just to mock another's belief is not nice.
If Arandir (arandir@meer.net) doesn't like the BSD license, he should join another user community. He certainly doesn't speak for the BSD community. His position in *no way* represents the feelings of the BSD community at large.
You CAN use BSD code in a GPL project without demoting the GPL to BSD. You have no choice, you simply cannot demote the GPL.
GPL people DO NOT have to worry about BSD being unable to change their license on previous copyrights. They are well within their right to remove their good name from any endeavor they so choose. Their letter waives rights unique to, and previous retained by, them. They are free waive previously retained rights as long as those rights are not part of a covenant with another.
GPL people cannot change a license after its released because others have contributed under GPL convents which are not specific to the original holder.
Eh? Because the ad requirement of BSD was a rational retention of rights for a copyright holder known as Berkeley. No following holder can assume any right to Berkeley's good name. So, Berkeley can pull their ad clause without affecting anyone else's rights.
IIRC the BSD license also includes a DISCLAIMER (in all caps of course) which disclaims any liability.. Which is a neat thing to do. Though I'm not aware of any public domain software programmers ever getting sued...
I'm not against people using the BSD, or even incorporating it into GPL or proprietary code. What I am railing against is the utter hypocracy that many AC's have posted here.
Imagine that I have a swimming pool. I allow everyone in the nieghborhood to use my pool at any time. I even keep my back gate unlocked so they can. You, on the other hand, continually berate and chastise me for my free-thinking ways. You warn me that some bum will spread disease in my pool, that kids will urinate in it, and the city council will fine me for not having a lock on the gate. Everytime I see you, you are wagging your finger at me calling me stupid and ignorant. What else am I supposed to think but "hypocrite" when you come use my pool?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
But if you take BSD code, make it GPL and incorporates it in Linux you get GNU/BSD/Linux, and then it's growing :)
%japh = (
'name' => 'Niklas Nordebo', 'mail' => 'niklas@nordebo.com',
'work' => 'www.pipe-dd.com', 'phone' => '+46-708-444705'
So, now that the advertising clause is gone, does this mean that FreeBSD can simply tack the GPL onto the existing license?
As a devout follower of GPL, I am ashamed at such a shallow suggestion. It's something only Micros~1 would do.
I see the BSD as a Title Deed. It really means that YOU pay or download to OWN Software.
However, that's like going au natureil in your own home on Main Street Anytown, Bible Belt USA.
I have nothing against nudists, but that ain't the place to do it, because of the likelihood of being shot by a member of their local upright citizen's brigade.
I would however say that software is not a physical entity but an item that can be easily replaced. Therefore it should be distributed.
We need to make sure everyone clearly understands what the words open source, BSD, and Free Software mean AND the differences.
I for one do believe in protecting future generations' access to code no matter how easy or difficult it is to understand or create.
There's a lot of truth in saying that all hell breaks loose when a society runs out of possibilities not because it can't physically create anything, but because it stifles itself from being able to prosper.
And don't tell me it's easier to stifle information using the GPL. Puhlease.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
No it doesn't say that. Go ahead and read it.
Buddy Boy continues:
Your problem is not with the GPL. It's with yourself. Why would you use GPL code in the first place if you didn't agree to the license? You don't make any sense. I presume you read the contract before buying a car. Next time read the terms before using a software license. You couldn't be that stupid could you?
The use of GPL license or not is your choice. It doesn't force you to do anything. If you agree to the terms of the GPL, then you can use the code. If you don't agree, you can't use the code. No one has ever been forced to use GPL code. It is a choice. If you don't like the terms of a Microsoft license, you don't have to use it. If you don't like the terms of the GPL, you don't have to use it. Simple enough.
And what, I ask of the previous posters, gives you the right to take *my* code, which I put my name on and BSD'd... and change the license terms on it???
What gives someone the right? The BSD license. Read it! Sure, anyone can still get a copy from YOU governed by the BSD license terms, but the person who GPL'd it is more than free under the BSD license to hold copies HE distributes to the terms of the GPL.
The whole point of the BSD license is that someone else can take the software and release a new version of it NOT governed by the BSD license.
If you want your free software to remain free, use the GPL. That's what it's designed for.
Do that to me and I'll take you to court... I may have given you the right to modify it, but I certainly didn't give you the right to change the license terms that *I* chose for *my* code...
You did give anyone that right, when you applied the BSD license to it. Microsoft can distribute a proprietary version of it, Joe Smith can distribute another BSD'd version of it, and Jane Doe can distribute a GPL'd version of it.
Those are the consequences of you choosing the BSD license. Everyone else is free to distribute copies of it licensed under NEW terms. Don't like giving other people that right? That's what the GPL is for.
Funny how everyone praises the BSD license until someone else decided to actually USE the freedom that the praise about the BSD license, then it's EXPLOITATION! THEFT! EVIL!!
Gads.
Just ommiting the U.C. Regents from the license doesn't change much. AFAIK, the main point of the license is that you can take code and not release it with your modifications. That's what makes it different than GPL.
Maybe I will be offended seeing my efforts help proprietary software interests? That's not a matter of ego, but of principles.
An interesting (and welcome) move. However, it's worth pointing out that they're not changing existing licenses retroactively. If it were possible to do that, there would be nothing to stop someone relicensing a program with an OSD-compliant license under terms that meant it was no longer freely redistributable. No, what UCB are doing is effectively offering new licensing terms. Individuals are free to either accept those terms, or stick with their original licenses. Of course, in this case, there's no benefit to sticking with the old terms, but the difference is worth pointing out.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I always hoped that *not* all Linux users are dumb idiots, shouting "GPL or die, Linux world domination", wich is the assumption I got from reading slashdot and other message boards.
Thank you! You have corrected my picture of a Linux user.
The GPL has a political agenda behind it whether you agree with it or not. If it is trying to get you to think, if you do not like it then do not use it. Many people love the GPL and hate the BSD license and vice versa. If you listen to RMS he only dislikes the BSD license due to the advertising clause, remove it and you have recreated the license that X11 is released under. "Do anything you want, don't have to credit anyone."
Yep!
This is really great news. The advertising clause made the BSD license incompatible with the GPL. This should help both the *BSD and the GPL camps.
I wonder who convinced them to change it? I know RMS was pushing for it:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
Sounds like someone fell for the Freedom of choice ads car dealers have been pushing lately, again.
Please show me how it stops competition programmers and business.
Closed Source is as ridiculous toward competitive efforts as Security through Obscurity.
One of the projects I'm working on constantly needs to be made incompatible, artificially low-yield and low-performance because of fucking pen and paper calculation patents.
There's plenty of COMPETING LINUX DISTROS, or haven't you noticed. I don't see too many COMPETING BSD DISTRIBUTIONS.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Many, including Richard Stallman, have criticized the BSD license due to its demand for credit in advertising. Since this is the only restriction on further redistribution, the BSDs are the only freely re-distributable operating systems in common use. However, due to the advertising clause, FreeBSD cannot simply tack the GPL onto the existing license. The GPL prohibits this. Much new development removes the advertising clause of the copyright statement.
So, now that the advertising clause is gone, does this mean that FreeBSD can simply tack the GPL onto the existing license?
So this means *all* BSD code out there has the advertising clause nullified? e.g. if I had source for an old 4.4 utility, BSD+advert licensed, that has been sitting on my hard drive for the last ten years, then that code can now be used without the advert clause? Coolers!
Would this also apply, then, to other non-BSD-UNIX yet BSD+advert-licensed software out there? Or would the authors of these programs have to re-release their source with the updated license?
iSKUNK!
"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS
Nah, it *still* has the *primary* problem that RMS was trying to solve with the GPL... it can be incorporated into commercial software.
RMS is a crusader against those evil licence agreememnt thingies you have to agree to when you get commercial software that say "Thou shalt not be nice to thy friends by leting them have a copy of this software". RMS doesn't want to ever have to sign away his right to be nice.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
You're the saints of the computer industry. Screw Richard 'Che' Stallman and his communist agenda.
Cool. That explains it: No wonder the NT ftp works correctly, the way that much other Micros~1 net-related stuff most definitely does not.
-------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
I'm sure millions of people are applauding this removal of "obnoxious" advertisement, however...
...it is still considered good manners to attribute your sources.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Choices for people working on GPL'ed products:
1. Keep to GPL or switch to new BSD license instead
Can't in practice switch, as all GPL'ed code is still GPL'ed
2. Include BSD code in GPL'ed products (previously impossible)
A no-brainer: use it if it helps.
Choices for people working on BSD'ed products:
1. Keep using BSD, or switch to using GPL
No new reason to change
2. Include GPL'ed code in BSD products (previously impossible)
This is the difficult one.
If you are working on BSD products rather than GPL products just because you prefer the products, you might wish to incorporate GPL'ed code (even though this "infects" your products with the GPL).
However, if you are working on BSD products rather than GPL'ed products because you dislike the GPL's no-non-free-use restriction, you would certainly not want to include GPL'ed code, even though it is now possible, because it would mean that your code would now be subject to the GPL.
In summary, for people who are in favour of the GPL, or are tolerant of the GPL and are working on GPL'ed code, this is great news.
For people who are tolerant of the GPL, but are working on non-GPL'ed BSD code, this gives them an extra choice.
For people who oppose the GPL, this is worrying, as there is now a possibility of future developments of currently non-GPL'ed code becoming GPL'ed
However, for everyone working on *BSD, this could by slightly worrying, as there may be a split in the community between anti-GPL and non-anti-GPL developers, and even a fork in the product between FreeBSD and FreeBSD-with-some-GPL-code-therefore-GPL'ed
It would be difficult to blame UCB for this, however, as the incompatibility between BSD and GPL licenses was (presumably) not by design in the first place. You cannot really claim that UCB is giving up a principle by removing the advertising clause.
Ananias (can't be bothered to wait for my password)
It has already started. Some of us at CMU have taken the FreeBSD code base and started integrating the cooler pieces of Linux into it. We will be releasing our GPL'd version of FreeBSD by winter (if our course workload isn't too much).
The thing is, what do you do when the software is so well written and self helping that you dont need any support. This is the best kind of all, the standard that all programs should aim to and yet this by your own reckoning renders you unable to make a living on the best software. GPL sucks.
What an idiot. How can any contract apply to someone who is not party to the contract? Unless you accept the terms of the GPL it can't mandate anything. And if you accept the terms of the GPL then you've agreed to accept its mandate. Duh. The GPL can't mandate anything to non-participants.
Apparently you haven't had any contact with RMS. I've been lurking on the license-discuss list at OSI for the last few months, and RMS routinely replies to mails mentioning "Linux" without saying "please call it the GNU/Linux system" or anything of that nature. He uses "GNU/Linux" is his own emails, as do some other people, but he doesn't force others to do so. He certainly doesn't legally require them to do so.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
How are these good things?
[a] fragmented BSD
Why has BSD been declared the enemy? What happened to the ability to freely choose your OWN operating system, regardless of popularity?
[b] pissed off the BSD crowd
So your goal is to get flamed and appear irrational? How can you justify using the term "BSD snobs" when you act as though anyone who would use the BSD license is simply below you?
[c] released a GPL variant of BSD which cant be subverted for commercial use.
Do you currently work anywhere as a programmer? I doubt it. Do you ever plan to, and if so, do you plan to get paid for your work?
Your misunderstanding of the issues, combined with your unrealistic views and bigotry, simply makes you look foolish.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
I would hold that the GPL is still better because
of the way it propagates to derived works (although that may not survive an actual confrontation with money and lawyers).
I think the GPL is more worthy as long unscupulous corporate types swarm everywhere. Non-free software will be used as a weapon to control and curtail your activities, and I don't feel like writing code that could legally be used against me in that manner.
I am surprised to hear it asserted that there is BSD licensed code in windows NT. Why didn't the credit to the UC Regents appear in NT commercials on TV ? But if so, that means someone contributed work which was then utilized to attempt to turn him into a good tithe-paying peasant.
The head of the letter says 22/7/99 and the date of the file in the dirctory is 16/8/99. Pretty outdated news for slashdot, huh? Anyway. This is a good thing to happen - at any time.
B.
Well, we do care that companies like BSDi uses the code. But we care in a way that is best described as getting recognition. They wouldn't have taken it if it were crap.
*shrug*
Call it elitist or arrogant. BSD code tends to be more portable and cleaner than corresponding GPL code. No offense intended, merely an observation I see between BSD and GPL source code. Then again, it might all be a matter of personality, the same personality which chose between one license or the other.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
Smiley noted =)
;)
I just think that FreeBSD is more open to new users. Then again, other people might think otherwise of course. Their own right.
I love NetBSD for it's portability and other style of code. It may not be for _my_ average day to day use, but the source code is, as well as Free's and Open's, a jewel to read and learn from.
But I still want a Net and Open box at home just to get more proficient in it then I already am.
Experience never hurts =)
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
Care to elaborate on this?
FreeBSD [and Open and Net] use GPL software in the project, but give proper recognition, with the licenses still intact.
Or were you meaning the transition/modification of GPL code to BSDL code?
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
The whole GPL vs. BSD conflict reminds me of other conflicts between groups that see themselves as polar opposites without realizing the overwhelming similarities between them, especially when the "leaders" of the two camps get along fine. In Rap we have East Coast vs. West Coast; in X desktops we have KDE vs. GNOME; and in free unices, possibly predating the previous examples, we have GNU vs. BSD. And sometimes, like now, it just gets ridiculous. (I almost want to sell it to USA Network as a 70's-style action series, "GvsB".[1]) If the GPL and BSDL seem radically different, compare them to the MS EULA.
On a more serious note, I'm having a flashback to my intro to philosophy class at college. There was one industrial-revolution-era(?) political philosopher (whose name I can't remember [2]) who advocated pure democracy. For any issue, the populace votes and simple majority rules. He said that such a system was the only way to ensure freedom. But what about the people in the minority? According to him, they would be forced to abide by the majority's decision; as he put it, they would be "forced to be free". Now maybe I missed something, but to me it seems that you can't force freedom on anything or anyone, any more than you can fight for peace or fuck for virginity.
I'm still not entirely decided on the OS license issue, personally; sometimes the GPL makes me feel like I'm being "forced to be free". In general, the LGPL makes me feel more comfortable. Sometimes I think that Sun's Community Source License is the closest we've come to The Perfect Open Source License: Do what you want with it if you're not charging for it, but if you do just pay the copyright holder(s) a royalty. OS code that you can make from money directly.
But ya know what? I'm not forced to be anything, because I can do whatever the hell I want with my own code. If I want to hack GPL'd code and I feel unfairly bound by the license, what the hell right do I have to complain? The writer could just as easily have used the MS EULA. I should be grateful I'm allowed to hack it at all, especially if it's the kind of product he could have made proprietary and gotten rich from. And if I think it's just horrible that MS can use BSD code and not OS-license the product, again, what the hell right, yada yada yada? It's not my code, it's UC Berkeley's code, and if they want people to be able to do that with it, it's their right to let them. And if I want to use the Sun CSL so I can release my source code for free use but get a piece the action if it's used commercially, I have that right.
Now THAT'S my idea of free software.
[1] Just in case some people missed it, "GvsB" was intended to lighten the mood of this whole debate and hopefully get some of the agrier people of both sides to chill the fsck out. And if it seems like I'm belittling the debate and don't appreciate how important an issue this is, you're right.
[2] If anyone knows the name of the guy I'm talking about, and wants to inform us all of his identity and any errors or oversimplifications I may have inandvertantly made due to the class being a few years in the past, please do so.
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sungla
Attaching the GPL to FreeBSD in general would be a staggeringly stupid thing to do. Having just been freed from the last restraint on truly free redistribution, why would we go and adopt a whole pile more?
Get it through your heads, people; FreeBSD is just that - free. It's not a vehicle for a political agenda, it's free software.
While no agreement was reached on all points, one common point of contention was that that the failure of the BSD license was attributable to the hated "advertising clause". This requirement was flagrantly violated by even those who pretend to support BSD derivatives such as Walnut Creek CD ROM. Talk of a lawsuit against Walnut Creek soon turned to the real problem---the ugly "advertising clause" of the BSD license. The participants hoped that by eliminating this clause, that BSD software could be incorporated into mainstream software such as Linux and Free Software Foundation offerings. So people, these are the reasons that the licensing was changed. Note the date and place of the original announcement. It is the hope of the BSD community that this new license will stop the bleeding and prevent the inevitable.
>Actually that's exactly what you do. You can release the damned thing >and change the license. What do you think Microsoft did with the >FreeBSD TCP/IP stack they used in Win2k?
The guy who wrote the Miami TCP/IP stack for the Amiga did pretty much the same thing, execpt he turned the BSD TCP/IP stack into crippled shareware. And the BSD license supporters wonder why linux users prefer the GPL.
What? The GPL has a licensing clause? Yes, read through it. You've gotta put their comments everywhere, including the online help files. You're SUPPOSED to even put something regarding the GPL in with ALL program output. AND, furthermore, all program output is GPL'd. (There are exceptions to this..) SO I demand all you mudders who use a GPL'd mud client to share your netsex sessions with me per the legal requirements of the GPL! If you logged, at least! Mags
This has been submitted many times to /., like a lot of other BSD-related news. Many of the /. editorial team are great folks, but like their readership there's enough anti-BSD bigots that real news does tend to get suppressed sometimes.
Question!
If I modify the BSD part of the code, I don't have to show it to anyone do I. (Forgive me I haven't read the BSD license in a while, but I never understand legal stuff anyway). But If I modify the GPL code, and deliver it, then I must include my changes.
So is there a middle ground? I mean, is there a license that says, if you touch my part of the code, you MUST release it, but if you include your own stand alone, you don't have to give up that. I know about the LGPL, but isn't that only applicable to libraries? Or can that be done with normal apps as well? If so, I think that is my preferred license!
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Funniest thing I've read for ages. Glad to see someone else has noticed the amazing resemblance between certain libertarians and the people they seem to hate most (Marxists and Fascists).
Lord St Richard will doubtless still be pissed off by the BSD licence. After all, it doesn't attempt to steal other people's work. No virus, on theft.
Um, no. Where did it say you could relicense somebody else's code?
It's spelled G-P-L. Please grow up.
The GPV is exactly that: a legal virus that infects everything it touches. Honesty demands that I call it what it is.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
RMS is not your god you idiots
The guy who wrote the Miami TCP/IP stack for the Amiga did pretty much the same thing, execpt he turned the BSD TCP/IP stack into crippled shareware. And the BSD license supporters wonder why linux users prefer the GPL.
Fine. Don't like what the guy who wrote Miami did? Go get the BSD stack, which is STILL freely available, port it to the Amiga however you like, and go into competition with him. That's freedom.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
the people who really seem to have the biggest problems with the GPL are for the most part windows shareware programers.
I started complaining about the GPV - and coined the term - in 1991 (or was it 1990? Damn, I gotta find a copy of that post). I didn't even load Windows - any version - on a computer until 1996. The license has always been broken, and some of us have been pointing that out since the beginning.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
/usr/src/sys/gnu
Acknowledged that the BSD and GNU licenses aren't mixed in any one program, though.
See http://www.daemonnews.org/199908/usenixrep.html
for a USENIX report.
*BSD dying, what a nonsense!
Typical Anti-BSD FUD.
This looks like a very nice move, kudos.
However, it looks like the letter refers only to the BSD software. It's a little known fact that the UC system's default license for software released by researchers, etc., has changed significantly since the BSD days, and (last time I checked), isn't a free software license at all.
My question, if anyone knows the answer, is whether UC has seen the light and decided to allow new software to be released under the new BSD (=~ X) licesnse, or whether the same bad non-free license applies.
I'll research this myself if nobody else knows.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
What is the difference between this and public domain now? The GPL prevents commercial development from absorbing source into proprietary works (for good or bad). Without the credit clause what is the point of the BSD license? Does it encourage or discourage anything in any way that makes it different from public domain?
Insert pithy comment here.
In this case its the same. The original license includes a copyright blurb right at the top.
the BSD licens spesificaly alows relicense with whatever you what. How can you ramble on about how "free" it is and then not exspect me to be able to relicens it under whatever I want?
the GPL can't do anything to *your* code if you don't use it. if you realy don't like it, then don't modify GPL software. remember, someone else wrote it to begin with, and they wanted to use the GPL with *there* code.
personaly, if I was going to do an OSS project, I would use the GPL, just beacuse I wouldn't want anyone else to *profit unfairly* from *my* work. remember, as the author of the origional software, you can do whatever you want. including sell a propritary version. with BSD, *anyone* can sell a propritary version.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Slashdot ignores *A LOT* of good news. They just get too much volume.
I'd hope that licensees of BSD Unix would still give credit to UC Berkeley, even if it is a voluntary decision on the licensee's part.
I'm a rabid GPL advocate and all, but the reprocussions of this I'm seeing down the road just make me ill...
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
It doesn't directly mean we can use FreeBSD code and share it more easily with Linux but it now means that where the FreeBSD parties and Linux parties want to it is now possible. This should be beneficial for everything people want to share. It means people can use BSD code + their own code under that license and all the free OS's can use it.
Since you don't like the GPL, I'm assuming that you would never release your code under the GPL in the first place. Thus, if you are dealing with GPL code, I'll have to assume that it isn't actually YOURS but someone elses that was released under the GPL. In that case, no one is forcing you to use the GPL code, so you have nothing to complain about. Write your own code, without using any GPL code, and release it with any license you like.
Otherwise, if you are using others code under the GPL, that is your choice and you must adhere to the license. Remember, GPL code most likely has had several contributors already, so it is not YOUR code.
C:\WINDOWS>strings ftp.exe|grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS>
Proof enough?
(Anyone with dual-boot machine can check it themselves by mounting the Windows partition and doing the strings thing from Linux.)
-- Alastair
That is funny, and I've often thought about doing something similar, such as release under the GPL, but put a restriction on the license that limits usage to non-Windows platforms only.
The good time when we where discussing if mounting a PC with Windows was S&M or necrophilia... 8-)
Actually, according to other posts in this thread, the BSD license says you are free to re-license the software after modification as you see fit... OTOH, IANAL, so don't take this as gospel :)
I met this brilliant man once, but I didn't consider his opinions because an anonymous coward would call me an idiot for that.
Of course RMS isn't our god he just paved the way for the true Messiah. TUX! You shall be smited for you blasphemy.
--
?
that many of the people that insist on calling it GNU/Linux, think that the advertising clause of the BSD license is "obnoxious". Would not that make RMS obnoxious? He never shuts up about it. Funny when credit is "requested" from GPL supporters it is due, but when the BSD license wants it, it is "obnoxious"
My good twin (who is registered) seems to get two points for everything he posts. I have no idea why. It would seem that this guy gets the same treatment. Too bad, huh? Perhaps Rob can correct me, but it seems that there is less and less moderation going on lately and more and more of this automatic stuff. Perhaps it is again time to re-adjust the number of points given to moderators. Oh well...
I'd hope that licensees of BSD Unix would still give credit to UC Berkeley, even if it is a voluntary decision on the licensee's part. That would be nice of them, indeed. But I'm still puzzled over what great, all-mighty, omniscient effect this will have on the grand scheme of the BSD camp of OSes. Other than the fact that they no longer have to include that paragraph, has anything changed? (I noted that someone said that they're now GPL compatible, due to the lack of the advertisement, because GPL is released to the community as a whole, no? Is that _all_ that's important about this? What are the effects, then, of such a change?)
Thankie kindly...
Insert mind here.
We truly live in an ideal world when people have nothing better to worry about than whether a university must be acknowledged in some ads. Pathetic.
Ofcourse, if somebody took YOUR 10,000 lines of code and made a billion dollars from it.. it wouldn't make you mad. No, what would be maddening would be the fact that they changed it.. ever so slightly.. made it faster.. better. Incompatable. And you can't see it, either. It is property of MegaLopoly Capitol Holding, INC CO LTD Limited AG. So go fsck yourself and write a better one. The BSD License depends upon a "gentlemans handshake" agreement that we give, and we take. The GPL is a pissed off farmer with a shotgun. Personally, cheap reproduceable code should be BSD'd. Something like the kernel should be GPL'ed (IMHO). ;-) the Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
it's pretty libertarian of 'em.
No, it's not. It's quite the opposite. As you know, [The People's Republic of] Berkeley has been a Liberal stronghold for decades. By definition, they cannot possibly be Libertarian; being Liberals (== socialists == Communists == Stalinists), they are viciously opposed to any and all principles of liberty and freedom. These are the same people -- Communists -- who murdered 30 million people in the Ukraine in the 1930's, and then spent the next sixty-odd years coving it up. They are murderers, pure and simple.
Furthermore, Libertarianism is, above all else, Independent Thought -- but there is not a single trace of Independent Thought in the above letter! Before a statement can qualify as Independent Thought, it must have one or more of the following characteristics:
The following sentence, for example, contains almost all of the Original and Independent Thought that I can muster: "The Liberals want to deny you Liberty by interfering with your right to sell firearms." Anybody who disagrees with that statement is, by definition, not an Independent Thinker.
I hope this clarifies things.
:)
Look, the only substantial complaint about the advertising clause (other than the GPL 'thou shall have no clauses before me' issue, which is the GPL's problem not the BSDLs) is the "nightmare vision" of advertisements having to have dozens of "XXX contains software licensed from Fred Bloggs" lines in any ad for XXX.
Problem is, that's not something that's going to change with the BSD license removed. There's still a boatload of other "XXX contains software licensed from Fred Bloggs" licenses out there. The meme is already out of the bag. All that this changes is that the BSD people have lost a handle they can use in countersuits.
And meanwhile it's OK for Red Hat to have to include "Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds". Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge the guy a thing. I just don't understand why the people who DO begrudge Berkeley similar recognition are satisfied with Linus' trademark.
So anyway... the bottom line is nothing practical has changed (the clause was only enforced once, IIRC, and it's a damn good thing it was enforced that time... nobody's harassing the people who put FreeBSD in the Snap! server, or Microsoft's BSD code in NT). Let's just hope whoever-owns-UNIX-this-week doesn't get huffy about 4.4-lite at this late date.
The best/worst (depending on viewpoint) part of the BSD license is that it allows you to redistribute it under your own license.
- If someone modifies a GPL'ed program, they must release the modifications.
- If someone modifies a GPL'ed program and gives/sells/trades/whatever the program with someone else, they must release the modifications to that person.
The first is false, but the second is true. I can modify GPL'ed code for internal use only, and tell no one about it. If, however, I let someone else have the program (compensation is irrelevant), I must give them the source code with it. I also cannot limit what they do with the source code.or
How does this differ from the BSD license? Can a person distribute binaries that include BSD code without distributing the source? Can they make their modifications under a different license than the rest of the program?
I guess I am a little confused about the license differences.
No, of course RMS isn't our God.
He's just the person that wrote the programs that my CS education was based on (GNU C++, EMACS), and he's also the guy that gives a voice to programmers who don't necessarily believe that all programming is the result of "ego-boo".
That's all.
Hardly worth even the slightest degree of respect.
Err... copyright != license. I haven't read the license myself, so this comes with the regular disclaimers, but I just wanted to point out that, unless you made a mistake in your wording, copyright is != license, so the other poster could very well be correct.
Ok, this is just something to note.
First, I'm not a Win9x, NT, *BSD, Linux, Mac, etc. user...
Actually, I run BeOS, Linux AND FreeBSD, so I'm not really biased.
Something a lot of people here seem to be saying is about appending the GPL onto *BSD. You people must get it through your heads, GPL is not the saving grace. Most, if not all, *BSD users that I know (self somewhat included) detest the GPL, because of it's politics. It's a software license for chrissakes, not a religion.
This is not intended as flamebait nor to attack, simply to point out that don't see it how a lot of BSD people do - they use FreeBSD because they don't want GPL, not because GPL doesn't want them.
Oh, and umm, hi mom!
But if someone takes BSD-licensed code, compiles it in with GPL code, releases both source and executable, allows redistribution of both source and executable, that makes them an "ungrateful lout"?!?!
If the BSD folks truly think that would be a bad thing, then it is easy enough for them to make a few tweaks to the BSD license so that it can't be released under a more restrictive license -- but that would be the GPL, then, wouldn't it... :)
You get 1 point automatically for not being an Anonymous Coward. This is because Anonymous Cowards (such as myself) have been known to be obnoxious or clueless.
The second point is a default moderation. It comes as a result of having several posts moderated up over time. The poster becomes a favored poster because they have a history of saying things worthwhile.
It's still possible for people with default 2's to post flamebait or trolls. We all have days where we get a little surly. If it continues, their default score will eventually be averaged down. It's also possible to log in and flame yourself into a default 0.
Check out rde's user page. Most of the time, rde has something worthwhile to say. Personally, I think (s)he was right on with the original post -- the BSD vs. GPL license war is one of the most time-wasting activities I've ever seen. I'm also tired of seeing BSD articles turn into 400-comment ASCII battles around here.
But I'm obviously a hypocrite since I'm posting on slashdot instead of coding right now.
Not really. What matters to us is that our code is useful. Whether it's used as-is, or as the seed for futher work is more or less immaterial.
Of course, the fact that so many people do use our code as-is tells us that our code is not only useful, it's pretty damn good too.
So, you're not interested in improving someone else's code, not interested in helping the community, not interested in any sort of the customary altruistic activities inherent in a gift-culture. Instead, you just want to take.
The author of a BSD source code can rerelease it at any time under any license he wishes. But because he doesn't, you would take his code and slap a different license on it against his wishes (not that you legally could). Ungrateful greedy lout!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I see this as a good thing, but just for historical sake a paragraph stating where it was developed *could* be left in the *BSDs. Nice to know where you came from.
unless i'm missing some sarcasm, what the hell would be the point to doing that since freebsd is a completely freely licensed operating system complete with source code that is freely licensed ( moreso than the gpl). There would be no point to rereleasing it as is or modified slightly other than pissing off a bunch of people in the freebsd camp and satisfying a bunch of gpl religious freaks who think the gpl is the savior license that ALL software should carry regardless of who wrote it and what purpose it has.
no im just enforcing the "freedom" of the BSD license against the author of the original software who was stupid enough to BSD license it in the first place. dont like this ? then GPL your code.
This would be a good idea, especially for Debian. Debian can now GPL BSD. Those submiting bug fixes and improvements will not have to worry about their changes being stolen. Then Debian could make a GPL/BSD/GNU operating system with the knowledge that it will forever be free.
yep! and lets re-release FreeBSD under the GPL (as allowed by the BSD license), call is LinuxBSD and sell it for a profit!
this means that BSD code can finally be released under the GPL after modification. yay!
Go right ahead. Don't be surprised when folks ignore you...after all, what's the point of doing a straight rerelease? People can still use the BSD-licensed version without the GPV baggage.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
First item. Plain as day. You can't change the copyright.
I'm starting to think this liberation of the license was actually a dumb move...
Sure, but why would you want to? BTW, it is pretty swank to see someone quoting me.
This would be hypocrisy only if it's the same individuals:
"Every time I see this one particular guy who happens to own a Buick, he is wagging his finger at me calling me stupid and ignorant. What else am I supposed to think but "hypocrite" when guys who own Buicks come use my pool?
Yes, that WAS RMS's 'biggest complaint' about the BSD licence.
And now that is gone....his 'reason' why the GPL is better than the BSD licence. I'm awaiting RMS's next 'reason'....with baited breath.
Guess this means BSD is just AS GOOD as the GPL, eh?
Apparently, my post got put up out of context. This caused some confusion. I'll rephrase my thoughts.
Now that BSD development is fully open for GPL/GNU participation, I see that no one is advocating this. No one. Instead I see lots of posts advocating the opposite, the taking of BSD code for GPL/GNU purposes. The whole idea of Free Software is to keep it in the community, and now I see people wanting to expatriate code. I see posts on the order of "now we can take it and make it ours." All of you would be pissing nails if someone suggested BSDing GPL/GNU code. But in advocating GPLing BSD code, you are among the worst of hypocrits.
No one in the BSD camp worries if you take some code here or there for your own use. In fact, it's encouraged. Take several application if you want and come back for more. But the BSD offer of free love was interpreted by you as rape. And just like a despicable rapist, your reply when caught is "but she really wanted it, look at how she's dressed."
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Hmm... methinks not!
If the BSD license gave you permission to "relicense" the code... why wasn't it GPL'd by someone else already?!?!? You may, in theory, be able to *add* the GPL to the license (and I think not, since as the original post said, its someone elses code... you do not hold the copyright and thus do not make the license terms)... but you certainly *cannot* just "relicense" the code as you see fit.
Now, you can, and always could, talk to the original author and get him to agree to GPL it. But, then again, you could've done that years ago anyways...
It mandates that code be given away for free, undercutting programmers who need to earn money for their work. At the same time, it deprives them of the use of that code in their own products. It is thus every bit as anti-competitive as the tactics Microsoft used against Netscape; in fact, it is more insidious in that it targets ANYONE who wants to make a living selling software. Richard Stallman has stated, publicly, that this is the EXPLICIT intent of the GPL.
--Brett Glass
> So, you're not interested in improving someone else's code, not interested in helping the community, not interested in any sort of the
> customary altruistic activities inherent in a gift-culture. Instead, you just want to take.
> The author of a BSD source code can rerelease it at any time under any license he wishes. But because he doesn't, you would take
> license on it against his wishes (not that you legally could). Ungrateful greedy lout!
I simply cannot fathom what's in your confused mind. You lambast the people who choose to take advantage of the very freedom you praise about the BSD license, all in the same breath!
If you were rational you would be _happy_ if someone takes BSD code and relicense it under the GPL. You would say "ah look, this exactly why I support the BSD license. Good work".
(PS. Sorry for the flame tone -- I'm in a bad mood for unrelated reasons)
A software license defines restrictions you wish to place on the use of your software/code. It is a legally binding agreement between the copyright holder and the user. These restrictions can not be overridden by sublicensing the code unless permission is explicitly given.
A copyright notice defines ownership of the code. You do not need to place a copyright notice in your work to hold the copyright. The second you write it (in the US), it is protected under copyright law unless you explicitly release it to the public domain.
Code which is in the "public domain" has no copyright. You used to see people who would release code to the public domain with restrictions, however in the US "public domain" means public domain, so the restrictions won't hold up.
Unless explicitly forbidden by a license, you can sublicense code under whatever terms you wish. The terms of the new license can not conflict with the old license (sublicense, not relicense).
This allowed people such as Microsoft to take BSD code and place it under MS EULA. The EULA does not place any restrictions to make it incompatible with the original BSD license.
That said, it is completely legal to sublicense BSD source code as GPL as long as the GPL does not conflict with the BSD license, which, by the looks of it, it doesn't.
Here are some URLs for people who are interested:
[disclaimer: this is all information I gathered from law usenet groups and various legal web sites so it may not be completely accurate. if there are any copyright lawyers who want to correct me, please do.]
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
BSD is about giving all potential return to others.
You write your code and take your choice. For "most people" I'd think getting some form of return on their work would be "generally better".
And what, I ask of the previous posters, gives you the right to take *my* code, which I put my name on and BSD'd... and change the license terms on it???
Do that to me and I'll take you to court... I may have given you the right to modify it, but I certainly didn't give you the right to change the license terms that *I* chose for *my* code...