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 "
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!
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
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
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
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
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!?
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
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.
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
You won't get argument from me that someone shouldn't modify the PNG library, making it 10x faster or some such nonsense, then claim it as their own and not redistribute their changes. But you will get arguments from me when you claim that my 100k line program must be GPLd if I use 'readline'. Its not that the software must be kept free that people usually argue with the GPL, but that it takes away the right you have to do what you want with your OWN software, independant of the GPLd code.
I can't help not replying to this. I tried for a few days, but no. We just heard BSD changed thier liscense. Now the old license was a BSD licesnse. You can't deny it, it was the origional. Any work he made and thus renamed in P3 to show his name, that's a BSD license. Just because the P3 was *just* removed, that does not seem right to say, now its not a BSD license so his comment on a BSD license was misleading. That's rubbish, and you know it.
(That's like saying without that clause in the GPL that any un-versionfied program can be put under any version the user see's fit, any older version isn't the GPL. Actually, it wouldn't matter if that clause was there or not. We agree, this was the GPL, this is the GPL. This "new" GPL is also the GPL. Different versions. Call this BSD v1.1 if you'd like. Its still BSD.)
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
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
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.
Read the subject
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
As someone pointed out, it is general mockery - if your sole argument against the BSD license is that 'people don't have to return modifications/ improvements to my code' and then relicense the BSD and make modifications, you are essentially DENYING the original author the right to use your modifications. It is hypocritical to first say 'I think it is a right for my software to always remain free' and then directly violate that freedom with respect to the original author (even though he never requested it in the first place)
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.
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!!
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
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
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
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.
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
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..
Ooups. If you was sarcastic, I missed it...
My apology..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
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.
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.
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.
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
True, but in that case, the FSF owned the copyright to the entire program, and hence were free to offer new license terms as they saw fit.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
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.
No, because that would negate the purpose of the GPL. If you want this, use the BSD license for your code. (The reason being that if you could relicense under a less restrictive license, you could just relicense it as Public Domain and do anything to it.) And yes, I think readline being GPL (rather than LGPL, which allows linking with non-GPL stuff) is ridiculous too.
"I want to use software that doesn't suck." - ESR
"All software that isn't free sucks." - RMS
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
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.
>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.
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).
Evidence to support this veiw?
While the BSDs have been losing their total of the market share pie, they've been growing in total numbers of users. If this were not the case, Walnut Creek CDROM would be in poor financial health, as FreeBSD is their primary cash cow.
Ungh
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!
It would be, if the BSD-licensed product was indeed weakly protected. It is not. Nothing anyone can do, under any circumstances, can change the fact that the BSD code itself is freely redistributable. Someone who takes that code and modifies it, then releases it under a different license, can only affect the status of the code as modified. The original code is, and will always remain, unaffected.
I'd call that a "rescue", not a fork.
I'm deeply offended by this; as someone who gave 17 years of his life as a volunteer paramedic, doing real rescue, this is no better than those idiots who call themselves "Operation Rescue" in the name of bombing and vandalism.
--
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!
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.
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
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...
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
The good time when we where discussing if mounting a PC with Windows was S&M or necrophilia... 8-)
I have and will continue to bash the philosophy behind the GPL, but I don't recall every bashing the GPL itself (though I may have nitpicked it). However, every license serves its purpose, including proprietary licenses. If the GPL serves your purpose, use it. If the BSD is better for you then by all means use it. There's no sense arguing over which is "freer" since neither has anything at all to do with political liberty.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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"
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.
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.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
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.
- 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.
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!
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.
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.
I thought about that, but isn't smitten when you like somebody. Like "I am totally smitten with her." Damn. Just looked it up in the dictionary and your right. It is used for both, love and fear.
--
?
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.
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?
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
On the contrary, it has everything to do with political liberty. For example, when a third world nation spends money on software, it is not spending that same amount of money, e.g., on paying its workers or addressing its social problems. Once software has been developed, it can and should be freely distributed; that is its nature, just as it is the nature of ideas. By forbidding others to do this, you are restricting their freedom to help one another and to share ideas, and you are in essence performing a legal form of extortion.
> 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.