Slashdot Mirror
YABGC: Yet Another BSD GPL Comparison
jay_rf writes "Found this by way of Linux Today: BSD vs. GPL posted at OS Opinion. " Its an ongoing debate, but what do you think about it?
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The neverending debacle continues...
This thing is getting to be a monumental pain in the ass. Use the software licensed the way you like and shut the fuck up. Jesus. Is there NOTHING in this world you kiddies won't turn into a pissing contest?
So you prefer to work for the millionaires at RedHat/VA Linux for free?
"The GPL protects against that."
that there 'protection' you call it, is in fact a *restriction* to someone elses freedom. I know, I know, nothing is 'free'.. but this stinking debate keeps arguing stupid things. It really comes out quite simply, can Microsoft or any other person take GPL'd code and make it proprietary? nope, so it isnt *free* , and dont give me the ole 'that's the protection/beauty of it' that isnt 'pretty' its a wolf in sheeps clothing.. you say its free? you believe in FREEDOM of your code, then FREE it.. dont do this _conditional_ free crap.. cause that isnt really free now is it? When i give away my code, it _is_ free, if MS wants it, fine, here take it, make it proprietary, all in all the code i release as FREE (BSD) is still FREE.. I dont know why i even posted, not many pay attention or anything..
no, i cant *spell* or *write* at all, i code.. so save you spelling/grammarical corrections, that's what secretaries are for =)
All I know, I use the GPL, cause as a developer, I would not want ANYONE else to make money off my hard work. Period.
Yes, but what about those of us who would like to contribute to a GPL product that eventually has many authors?
If the original author wants to take it commercial, and I can't, I'd be pissed -- especially if I did a proportionally similar amount of work.
I seriously question the validity of this position taken in the GPL. If he can, using some of my code, I say fuck him and let him use untested and shaky license in a court case. I'd like to see something like this happen.
wrong! One is less free and more restricted!
The GPV is a licence to steal. It's a licence to force other people to work for free. It's a licence to infect traditional software models with a neutron bomb to kill the bottom line. It's a licence that pretends to be noble, but in fact, is completely insidious and misleading. It's a licence that twists words out of their normal meanings for the purposes of the cult.
That's not to say that the GPV shouldn't exist. It should. But it should not be lied about. Tell it like it really is, damn it: a proprietary licence with severe re-use restrictions.
WRONGRIGHT
of courceof course
you'ryou're
licancelicense
obviusobvious
choisechoice
The whole truth is that the GPV prevents the per-licence revenues on copies of software that have traditionally accompanying the selling of software. Since you can no longer profitably/usefully sell your software in the way that's always been used, you must come up with something else. And no other way has been proven to generate the serious revenues that has made the software industry. Don't give me that crap about Redhat's valuation. Where's their profit, eh?
You can license however you will. Fine. But stop pretending that denying people royalties is somehow noble, or that denying them the ability to profit from their own work is a better way. It isn't. It's another way. And some people certainly don't think it's better. Why are you so blind?
The GPL doesn't dictate use, just modifications. Since linking to non-GPL'd programs and libraries doesn't require code modification or material inclusion, the viral part doesn't apply.
Since it isn't viral if you're just calling a program or library's API, I don't see why people make such a big deal of it. It's only viral if you cut-and-paste code, or modify the standard version. This seems fair.
"One could release a network appliance that uses completely GPL OS and utilities through and through but still really be selling enhanced closed source value added components"
/me hugs himself then throws up.
What if I want to take a popular GPL program and extend it and sell it commercially? Your example uses only the OS and tools within.
Example: What if I want to extend a particular application for use in my appliance? What if all these major changes would give any competitor an easy shortcut around barriers to market?
Heck, most applications of particular applications aren't going to be used in appliance and embedded markets.
Ever wonder why linux based software companies are using their hype money to buy up commercial software companies?
Where does open everything stop? Should all hardware be open too? How about we all just forsake jobs and profits and work for a better, less capitalst world.
Well, the whole idea of code sharing is based on cutting and pasting code between programs. It's the life blood of free software. The GPL prevents this.
Look it up. He's confused.
Now, maybe Tricky Dick really does understand this, and he just won't let me use a modified version of his licence on his software. That's fair. But of course I'm free to use a derived version of his licence (remember: he does not own the copyright on a contract) on my own software.
This myth that you can't change the GPL is one more FSF lie. Ask an IP lawyer whether you can use a derived version of an existing contract on your own work. Of course you can. The GPL does not infect itself, and Tricky Dick doesn't get to tell you what to do with it.
Dr Stallman's actions speak far louder than even his words. This is the true measure of a man's strength of purpose, his inner faith. And it's clear that by his actions, he rejected the corrupt lure of avarice.
He is our guiding light of morality in these dark times. Follow his lead, and you will never go astray.
The FSF, like any other cult, corrupts and subverts common words to private meanings so as to better deceive the gullible masses who have not read the Holy Texts. The FSF's "freedom" is neither libre nor gratis. It is collectivist exploitation. How much money did Mr Young make off your work that went into RHAT? How much money did you make? See the problem? It's evil.
Listen, chump, you are either very naïve, or very wicked. What the fuck is wrong with someone making money? If it were free, then there would be no problem. But it's not free. It's an evil, non-free, restrictive, greedy, money-grubbing, proprietary licence.
Admitting this is the first step to recovery.
Why the fuck is it at these "free" software zealots are so afraid that somebody out there will someday be making money? You're a bunch of puritanical freaks!
GIVE IT ALL AWAY!
It's nothing of the sort. It's just as fucked in the head as Bill Gates, and for just about all the same reasons.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? You FSF supporters should be ashamed of yourselves!
Im really getting tired of these people. Anyone here feel the same way? -SM
And the BSD license solves this (assuming it's a problem) how?
How would this be better if Linux (And tools) were BSDed and redhat was producing a closed source OS? At least with the GPL you are on equal footing to compeat.
BF was not talking about this type of freedom vs security. You are intentionally confusing the issues.
The GPL in no way can limit the orignal authors ability to propritarize the code. If fact, the GPL gives ONLY the author the right to do this. BSD gives it to every freeloader out there.
If I write some code and relase it as GPLed, I can still turn around and sell it to MS under a differnt license.
Lies don't hide the truth.
The GPL attempts to refrain from dictating use, as Stallman tends to think that such use of copyright is inapproiate.
Unfortunatly, in the US copyright CAN dictate use.. There is plenty of precidet, thank you mega corps.
Just look at the license for windows.
Re: "I chose it because it was the right tool for the job I do." If a few less people had said that in the last twenty years we could have gotten a popular decent OS sometime in that period. Amiga OS, Mac OS (?), NextStep OS, Many Unixes - all good OSes that are basically unusable because of people like who refused to sacrifice a little to encourage the popularization (and ease-of-use improvements) of a good OS. M$ was selling so many OSes to these idiots they didn't see the need to do any more than make minor improvements so people would have to buy new versions. I don't blame M$; I blame M$ users.
The fnord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst antibusinessmen,
And blessed is the fruit of thy doom, the GPV.
Holy Richard, lover of poverty,
Pray for us coders now,
And at the hour of our disemployment.
Praise Rich from whom all blessings flow.
Praise Him all hackers here below.
Praise Him above, ye Redmond host.
Praise Richard's puns and all he boasts.
All praise to thee, our Pauper King,
For stolen software Thou dost bring,
For viral care Thou dost bestow
On all our coding here below.
He maketh me to lay down ownership of mine own code; he leadeth me beside stilled pleasures of the software collective.
He restoreth my dole: He leadeth me in the paths of overrighteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, verily, though I should walk through the valley of the shadow of profit, I shall reap no reward-- for Thou, O Richard, art with me; Thy rants and Thy virus, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a licence before me in the presence of my shareholders; thou anointest my head with burnt ashes of defeat; my dribble runneth over.
Surely poverty and bitterness shall follow me all the days of my life: and I shall dwell in the house of the FSF forever, for I should never afford the rent anywhere else.
Doesn't it suck to be wrong, chump?
Hee. :-) That's pretty good.
Look what Nokia did with FreeBSD. They made proprietary os called IPSO and it's FreeBSD based. BSDL made that possible. Now with that they even won't give away C compiler for their "os" makes BSDL sucks. If you're wondering what is IPSO, it's os for nokia's ipsilon box which is router/firewall. Standart PC hardware and cost more than Sun...
My car, being brand-new, is nearly unwork-onable. It's all high tech. There's even a computer port where the tech plugs in the diag device to figure out what's wrong. I can't do that. I don't have the specs, or the hardware. But do you see the FSF loons bitching about closed-source on automobiles?
Hypocrisy unending.
Free as in shoplifting.
Anybody who writes software that's only for Linux is a prioir fucked in the head. The program should be for any Unix whatsoever, not just the Linux flavours.
Only the GPL protects you from other people using your software.
What a bunch of ingrates! Without the FSF, you wouldn't even be here today. There'd be no Mosaic, no Perl, no Slashdot, and no Internet.
Talk about looking a gifthorse in the mouth!
Everybody knows about the GPV, since back when Jay Maynard coined the term a decade ago.
Now, on to my seldom-seen point. Copyright law exists mainly to encourage people to create and publish works. (The law recognizes that complete loss of copyrights after about a hundred years will has little effect on that encouragement, for example.)
GPL-licensor's use of copyright law, specifically the viral aspect (you can't use my code if you don't GPL your additions), has little or nothing to do with encouraging new work. Few people would not develop software if they couldn't use the GPL. In fact, it discourages new work because it many developers will refuse to make derivatives of GPLed software because they refuse to be told how to license their own work.
BSD type licenses (and some parts of the GPL) do encourage new work by protecting reputation (attribution clauses, etc.) and protecting against liability (warranty clauses, etc.). But the nasty no-share clause of the GPL has nothing to do with the reason for copyright law and the GPL thus abuses the law. That is the business of (even) ethical lawyers, but it shouldn't be the business of ethical software developers. It's inherently selfish and should receive the same admonishment as other forms of selfishness outside the commercial world.
Some of us don't care if a company makes money from our code. Its called capitalism, if you don't like it then move to europe.
Oh, come on. You know perfectly well that people who don't want to have their work under the GPL will simply not bother working on or contributing to a GPL project, so nobody is forced to do a damn thing!
Anyone who wants to do anything useful to the code is forced to work under this miserable virus.
This is FUD! Pure FUD! Anything released under the BSD licence is FREE! It's free today. It's free tomorrow. It's free for all time. IT'S FOREVER FREE!
Remember: what somebody else does with your free software is THEIR work. It's not yours. You have no hold over them. If they choose to make their work non-free, this is IRRELEVANT!.
Your BSDL'd code remains free. STOP FUCKING LYING!
The GPL v.s BSD debate is tired and essentially meaningless. Some people use linux because it is popualr and available in shrink-wrapped boxes at Fry's. Some poeple use BSD precisely because it isn't available at Fry's. 99% of users don't give a hoot about licenses at all.
Please kill these idiotic debates.
I've never seen one intelligent piece come out of this site. WASTED BITS.
You use a different dictionary than I do? I see no restrictions in your statement.
Stop!!! No more!!! arghhh, its painful listening to these endless, ridiculous debates.
RedHat has contributed tons to the linux community (writing many cool utilities, employing several kernel hackers, gnome hackers, etc) and is helping linux and opensource in general.
I can't believe you have the balls to accuse RedHat of leeching off of Linux. What the fuck have you contributed besides empty words, you fucking leech.
The only thing worth reading here was the funny prayers. Nobody else had anything that was either amusing, insightful, or interesting. You all deserve flamebait scorings.
Um, if you don't WANT to use the GPL (calling it the GPV just makes you look desperate and foolish) then don't. If someone releases their code under the GPL THAT IS THEIR RIGHT; nobody is forcing them to do it and by doing it they are agreeing to those restrictions. If they don't like it they can keep it closed, release it under BSD, make it public domain, whatever they please. You would tell people what license they can use with THEIR code just so that somebody else can use it? Fuck you, it's you who is restricting freedom, not them.
Calling it the GPV is the way to get the word out about its insinuitive and insidiously viral nature. We call it truth in advertising, something the FSF has always striven to avoid. Look at how they twist words like "free" to mean its antithesis.
``Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose.'' :-)
shallow be Thy fame.
Thy zealots come, Thy will be done
In libraries as it is in programs.
Give us this day our daily flamewar,
and forgive us our hypocrisies,
as we berate those who stand against us.
And lead us not into Linux IPOs,
but deliver us into welfare rolls.
For Thine is the derision, and the division,
and the dissension, forever and ever.
Amen.
With BSD, an entrepreneur is free to do what he can to put feed his family. With GPV infected software, he is not. You can either support the American Dream, or you can crush it under Richard Stallman's anti-enterprising heel.
Your choice.
hehehe....he said sophistries. What other faggoty words did you pick up in philosophy 101?
The original statement read: "I use the GPL, cause [..] I would not want ANYONE else to make money off my hard work. Period." The other poster just pointed out that the GPL will NOT prevent others from making gobs of money off of your work.
Generally speaking I've noticed that many people like the GPL for all the wrong reasons.
Don't be an irresponsible twit. Equating the BSD licence to murder is a Godwinnian tactic.
STRAWMAN!
Irrelevant distraction!
Would you loonie tooners please get off this "BSD == murder" crap?
BSD gives you freedom to do something very nasty with your software That's right. It gives me the freedom to GIVE IT AWAY. It also gives me the freedom to make money off of my own code. God forbid that anyone should be so evil!
Thank you for displaying your true colors. Now, get the hell out of Dodge.
I haven't seen so obvious a quack in a long time.
What is the real difference between putting something under the BSDL and putting it into the public domain?
For your information, Sun uses BSD code, so this pro-Linux bigotry is just hot air.
QED
The main point is we can have free software; we don't need infected software.
That's like saying locking my door is a restriction on a burgurlar's freedom to rob me.
So what?
I limit my charitable donations to those who need it.
I code free software for the value I get of more free software in return.
Naked stone teen girls
Who turned them to stone? I did
Naked stone teen girls
This article was mostly content-free. The author didn't even bother to look up the correct name for the European standards body mentioned (ECMA). It's also factually incorrect -- the ECMA has announced that they do not plan to create their own Java standard.
Frankly, I don't see how a moderator could mark down any post on this article as Flamebait. The whole thing was nothing more than one giant Troll.
Next time, please don't bother to include the article. Just put up a blurb that says, "Hey, let's start yet another Slashdot GPL vs. BSD debate." That way, I'll know to skip the whole thing instead of wasting my time reading this babbling.
BSD is about helping others. GPV isn't.
Interesting argument you've got there for choosing BSD over GPL. Do you mind if I use it to argue Public Domain over BSD? You see the BSD license does restrict my freedoms in several ways. Specifically, the conditions of the BSD license are as follows:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither name of the above organization nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
From the above limitations it is apparent that the BSD license seeks to virally infect all future derivative software with a required copy right notice! So, _I_ say if you want REAL FREEDOM and none of this _conditional_ free crap, make the code truely free. Don't put a license on it all and release it as public domain! Yes sir, that is what I mean when I say FREE and anything else is just a false freedom with under false pretenses.
It figures that such tripe has no real mail address attached to it.
But if you add two lines to my 1,000,000 lines of code, that doesn't mean that I own those two lines of yours. And if you GPL those two lines, and my code was initially free, then you don't bloody well infect my code either.
a) It was written by a lawyer.
b) I suspect Redhat has many lawyers. Any public company must simply to survive.
"Freedom is unrestricted"
Then there is no free speech in the USA. I can't yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater.
Yeah, you should see the immoral things people do with libraries: www.LGPL-pr0n.com
Did rms run over your dog, steal your girlfriend and kill your mother?
No one forces you to use GPLed code in your applications. If you have the GPL that much, don't use it.
No one was stopping you from starting an Open Source company that could have made you a millionare too. Its just your own lazyness and stupidity holding you back.
If you modify MY code, and don't give it back, you're restricitng my access to it! Get it?
pot. kettle. comprende?
at least he made an argument. but I suppose if he's right, you can't attack the substance, so attack the presentation.
This kind of thinking isn't going to help you win over converts...nor is taking the attitude of "You are Richard fucking Stallman, you don't need a badge" as Emmit Plant likes to espouse.
wah wah wah, other people won't released THIER code under the license I want! Grow up. If you really can't stand the license, and your changes would be that great that anyone would care, rewrite the damn thing. Just PLEASE stop whining.
I bet you call windows "winblows" and defend it as truth in advertising. I bet you think its really cute. Your rhetoric is getting rather old, especially after your clueless claims have been disassembled several times. You're not going to convince anyone to join your holywar against the GPL with continual idiotic ranting.
Say it thirty times: "No one forces you to use GPLed code."
Linux isn't Unix.
Dumbass.
The idiots sure do come out for any BSD or GPL story here. Between "tricky dick" "GPV" and "rms is a godless communist opressor!" posts, I don't think there actually is any content in the comments section. But at least its amusing.
He didn't compare selling software to murder. That would be more like: "selling software is like murder"
A:B::C:D isn't saying A == D, no matter how strongly you feel about the matter. Making counterfactual attacks, and then restating your tired and discredited opinion, you convince nobody. It just makes you look like an irrational religious zealot, just as you accuse those who choose to release their code under the GPL.
end the flamewar? I must get the message out that the GPV is a communist plot by the evil alien overlords to control our minds with their orbital microwave band electron lasers!!!!11!1!
THE MESSAGE MUST GET OUT! Where is my tinfoil cap?!?!
have you ever seen an analogy before? no where was the BSDL compared to murder. I can't decide if you're just too stupid to understand analogies, or if you're just trolling. Normally I would say no one is that stupid, but this is slashdot after all.
hypocrisy because they're not working towards freedom everywhere at once? If you want freedom to hack on your engine, start the FAF (free automotive foundation) but the FSF will focus on software (hence the S). Read their comments re: free hardware on their webpage.
"Free as in shoplifting"
This would be true if anyone forced you to use GPLed code in your own projects. But thats not true. Why are you so adamant that people only release software under the license you want? did they not write the code? do they not have the right to license it however they want?
While I prefer the advertising clause, there is another that is also important. It is to protect the original authors by being exploited by those in marketing and advertising. The BSD license prohibits that contributors may be used to endorse or promote products using BSD licensed code without permission.
There is this and there is also the section freeing yourself from all potential damage that could be caused by the code or compiled programs.
Ghostscript uses a temporarily proprietary model.
Aw, come on. Can't someone be both gay and good? Tux, for example.
.sig
"Unless you tell me, I'm going to just assume that you want to see my penis....What am I, a mind reader?...Of course, if you still don't want to see it, I won't take it out at all, out of respect for your weird neuroses." --Lowell P. Thurber, The Onion
Because of the GNU Public Virus (or GPL) Nobel programmers who give out their source code to PUBLIC DOMAIN routinely have it stolen by LINUX guys and rubber stamped with the hypocriticle GPL. Want an example? I am sure there are many, but recall public domain source code i had seen was scopped up and gpled behind the authors back (Darin Adler) in this case.
I respect BSD, lovely FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD because 17 year olds can download and program it. Can 17 year olds download and program Corel Linux 1.0 RIGHT NOW? No they cannot. You need to be 18 to use GPL code from Corel. That is one of many reasons Richard "Carl Marx" Stallman makes my stomach churn.
His anti-Apple yet pro MS views are irrational and his 400 dollar goddamned CD-ROM distributions of GNU source code in the early 1990s that eventually competed against honest 25 dollar GNU source distributions makes me laugh. What a money grubbing scum. The GNU specified REASONABLE media costs and he applied 9 track tape costs plus a multiplier factor in coming up with his goddamed multihundred dollar cd-roms. Maybe redhat will neet to have multihundred dollar cd-roms for the full source version of Redhat linux 2000?
When i give out free software i want praise not hatred and spite because of a restrictive fascist GPL virus on the code. Free means free. Long live BSD unix.
Of course we all know that RedHat Unix is soon to be a BSD product, highly compatible with linux that Redhat will sell openly as RedHat L*NIX 1.0 with all sorts of cool object code apps and 3rd party goodies. This BSD will crush all other Linux Distros in market share and will probably have driver wrappers to fascillitate windows driver support. Hell Redhat L*NIX (based on FreeBSD) in 2001 will probably include a sweet vmwarelike environment capably of multiprocessing if they cannot get a descent win95 emu working in it. If redhat wants to make millions selling os's maybe they will use BSD but do i care if they do? No. I don't care. Its a free country and free means free. Free for 17 year old programmers and free for billionaires to make more money to pay taxes on.
I hope more people spend time on an OS not stolen from Minix 1.2 source code and relabled LINUX and then filled with stolen GPL tools and apps and libraries from the GNU project which never got their own OS's done because of PC-bigotry.
BSD UNIX knows its noble heritage, and has nothing shameful in its lineage to hide. In fact if you review the BSD liscense it recently got even shorter. Its almost as close to
Free public domain Unix as you can get.
RPM anyone?
Good point. Which is another reason why differences between both licenses are kind of insignificant.
BSDL'd software starts out with more freedom, but then it erodes....
Rewrite it as a BSD app first? Steal the code? Who cares? The real question is how amazingly advanced is your application versus the free variant? Will people pay for dancing paper clip extensions? And the exact same thing can be said about the BSDL. This is why people pause and reflect before buying a license from BSDi. Admittedly the application space is different from sales and development of kernels and OSes but how many real substantial examples are there of enhanced commercial versions of free applications that thanks to the BSDL have furthered innovation improved the economy and all that blah blah blah that is supposed to undergird IP law.
If the worst thing people can say of the viral evil of the GPL is that it prevents the kind of commercial poaching on open source application projects that you describe then that's pretty mild criticism. There's a fair number of commerical interests that don't seem to have a problem with using modifying, gcc, and even shipping it and I don't see too many BSDL projects turning into lucrative companies.
most applications of particular applications aren't going to be used in appliance and embedded markets.
Just wait - the PC is the tip of the iceberg. Appliances aren't quite the same as embedded devices and there are already many of them available now (RAQ, WhistleJet, etc). When highspeed connections become more prevalent then phone/fax/messagind, and digital media, home entertainment boxes (that will actually just be computers in disguise) are going to appear in droves. If these things use an OS of sorts who cares if it's GPL'ed? Competitors won't gain an edge if the real work is being done by you won commercial app.
The entire debate over "which license is truly free" seems alot like debates over counting angels dancing on heads of pins.
Since when has sophistication been a sign of homosexuality?
Thank you beavis.
You succinctly summed things up.
Yes, sweetie pie, Linux is Unix. Stop fooling yourself.
Don't you see? A propose to start a flame war topic will start the raging vibe. I say use the penguin with the Jihad! Luke!
btw, by nature, a penguin is cooler than Chuck, hehehe...
CY
No license could protect code from anything all its owners agree to do. But in return for copyright assignments, the FSF offers every contributor a signed contract basically stating they won't do that.
I can't fix MS' TCP stack, or learn how Solaris works, or get the source for dozens of other products (I don't even know which nowadays!). If I have not seen further, it was by standing in the footprints of giants.
Imagine how much money and time it'd take if only your Authorized Dealer could, say, change your oil. Then imagine an entire generation brought up thinking they're Not Supposed To Know how things like cars work.
BSD sucks and is full of shit. it cant even run on my hardware.
Tivo.com/linux. download and learn.
So you prefer to work for the millionaires at RedHat/VA Linux for free? It really pisses me off that the only people who are able to make money off of GPV'd software are people like RHAT and LNUX. Why isn't the author making anything? Because of this collectivist mentality. The party favourites get their dachas, and the rest of us stand in line for bread.
So GPL your contributions, and he'll have to release the source of anything he derives from your work.
Our Failure, who art in Cambridge, hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in Redmond as it is in Redhat.
Give us this day our daily virus, and empower our flaming, that we might incinerate those with the temerity to speak against us.
And lead us not into royalties, but deliver us from profit.
For Thine is the freedom from the shower mandatory--forever and ever.
Amen.
The differences between the two licenses aren't all that significant. One says use the code share freely; make any special enhancements to the code that you want for a product and share that enhanced code only if you wish but always refer to us as contributors. The other says use the code share freely; any enhancements you make must be freely shared as well - if you distribute them that is. You can do whatever you want to the code in private just don't release it as a product without releasing your code too. All that viral license nonsensical criticism about the GPL is mostly bullcrap in terms of the real world of users and implementations. One could release a network appliance that uses completely GPL OS and utilities through and through but still really be selling enhanced closed source value added components.
OSes and networking code have largely been commoditized. Who cares if you make enhancements to BSD for you product and release them at you pleasure, or make enhancements to Linux that you are obligated to release? Either set of OS/tools is only the incidental technological basis of your *real* product which is some other commercial module, the packaging, product preparation and/or support. The is no real difference. Just because you as a coder prefer one or the other system doesn't mean one or the other licenses "suck". If it bothers you so much rewirte BSD application as a GPL or vice-versa. Rewrite the entire set of Unix shell tools as python scripts under the artistic license if you want. It likely wouldn't be that hard to do.
Flamers simply seem to want to demonstrate the significantly different impact of each license in order to invalidate the other. They act as if it's not a monumental waste of time. Why don't the BSD and GPL advocates gather millions of dollars, hire lawyers and go before a judge and establish clearly what the *significant* differences in the two licenses are - significant in real measurable impact on economic development, employment, and technological innnovation.
Of course such a case would be a waste of time and money. The judge might tell you as much - the IP lawyers would string it along for as long as they could of course.
Sorry for wasting your time.
The BSD license makes programmers free to have their work exploited by corporate interests for no remuneration. The GPL protects against that.
Choose whatever license you want, but keep in mind that by choosing BSD, you could be working for Microsoft for free.
Further, it is simply not true that the GPL prevents selling software. It just means that the source has to be included. Plenty of people will pay for software regardless of source availability.
*scratches head*
Huh? It's your code. You can license it however you wish. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the preamble concerns a user changing the license after the code has been distributed. In other words, only the original owner of the code has the right to change the license.
Nothing prevents you from taking the GPL and modifying it for your needs. Witness all the calls for the KDE folks to release under a GPL + QT exception license. You probably can't call it GPL anymore, but does that really matter?
I disagree with you here. I won't go into the reasons because they've been hashed over many times.
I do agree with you on most of the rest (that free software is a priviledge and so on), though I don't see the contradiction in a license that holds the user to certain responsibilitites. That is exactly what a license is for. The license grants the user certain "rights," which are not the same kind of "rights" as in "Bill of Rights." The license is really granting priviledges, as you rightly (heh) say. Upon further reading, I think we are saying the same thing, that the wording of the GPL is a little silly.
In any case, I really don't see the point to these kinds of arguments. Use whatever license suits your needs. There's nothing to be ashamed of if you want to sell your software. Likewise, just because I might license something under the GPL doesn't mean I'm a FSF zealot. I'm doing it for a reason (mainly because I want good code freely available so I can learn).
--
You're telling me that I can't take the GPL, omit a few sections, add some of my own, generally re-word things to my liking, rename it to Doc Greene's Miracle License for the Legally Challenged and ship it with my code?
Right.
--
OS Opinion is like Slashdot without the stories.
Conclusion:
The BSD license is *more* free than the GPL.
Reasoning:
For the purposes of this post, 'free' is defined as 'without restrictions'.
BSD license = you let your code out, anyone can do what they like with it, and do not have to give anything back to you. In other words, there are *no restrictions* on what you can do with the code.
GPL = You may not make modification to the code, and distribute compiled binaries without the modifications being available. *ie there is a restriction*.
Therefore, the GPL is "less free" than the BSD license.
If someone with a BSD license has their code modified and sold, then how does that restrict *their* freedom. They are *free* to do exactly the same thing.
/rant
ok.. so we have established that. The GPL however is *more open* than the BSD license as all modifications that are made public must be accompanied by source code.
For the record, personally I think the GPL license is more reasonable for use with large projects, whereas the BSD license would be more suited to quick hacks that anyone could do, but downloading someone else's code would be more convenient.
This is my opinion though, and whatever license someone chooses for THEIR software is THEIR luxury, and not mine. I have *no right* to cry about it.
I'm just sick to death of people immediately clamouring to "defend" the GPL as "more free than blah" without thinking.
The GPL is LESS free than BSD, and IMHO this is an advantage. It is also a disadvantage. Each to their own.
smash
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Yup. The "embrace and extend" philosophy exemplified in proprietary lock-in compilers like VC++ and gcc really suck dead donkey dick.
Perhaps you should look proprietary up in the dictionary before you apply it to gcc.
I would agree that gcc encourages people to use features that are not portable to other compilers, but that is a far cry from being proprietary. Ask the guys at Cygnus how much legal pressure they felt when the forked the gcc codebase if you have any doubts.
Of course, I can take gcc, slap my own copyright on top, and market it as JasonCC. All of this is perfectly legal providing that I release it under the GPL.
I think that you would have to stretch "exclusive legal right" pretty far to say that the FSF has exclusive legal right over gcc. Heck, they don't even maintain it anymore Cygnus (meaning RedHat) does.
It takes the BSDL to make software truly proprietary (meaning you can create closed-incompatible, binary-only versions).
Let's imagine that you wrote a compiler and gave away the source code to the world. You created compiler flags and documentation so that people who wanted to use your compiler to create ANSI C compliant programs would be able to. You then ported your compiler to every architecture that has ever existed.
Oh, and you did all of this for free.
Now after all of this was said and done, you realized that your life would be a lot easier if you made a few modifications to your nifty compiler. The extensions would not be ANSI C compatible, but they could be turned off. After all, the chances of you using a different compiler than the one you created (which runs on every platform ever) are very slim.
So your compiler gets some nifty new extensions that make your life easier.
The Free Software Foundation does not owe you a ANSI C compiler. They wrote gcc so that they would have a compiler to use, and they just happened to share. I think that it is patently ridiculous to label this act as evil just because it is possible to write code that doesn't port cleanly to other compilers.
After all, why should the FSF care about some other C compiler. They aren't ever going to use anything but gcc.
You still haven't answered my question as to which other C compiler is doing a better job than gcc when it comes to standards compliance. From my experience all C compilers want to lock you down to one platform or another. At least gcc will compile binaries for whatever hardware you are interested in.
His changes are his work...not yours.
If you produced software that is supposed to used, then you should not care.
On the flip side, if the BSD advocate wanted to release the source code to his changes he shouldn't be concerned about whether or not the software was licensed under the GPL. After all, as long as the source code is "open" it makes no difference whether the license is GPL or BSDL.
The problems arise when someone wants to take the source code and make changes that are to be proprietary. The BSD licenses permit this, and the GPL and the LGPL licenses do not.
There are perfectly good reasons why a hacker might not want to have proprietary changes made to his software. The classic example is the addition of a proprietary extension that is incompatible with the original.
We've all seen proprietary "extensions" to open protocols and software, and we all hate them. They make our lives difficult, and get in the way of progress. The GPL makes these extensions impossible while the BSD style licenses actually encourages this sort of behavior. This is why GPL advocates "care" how their software is used. They have already given the user the right to use the software, and they have even given the user the right to modify the software. They simply haven't given you the right to make incompatible versions of the software.
Once again, unless you are planning to close the source code it makes no difference whether your code is released under the GPL or the BSD.
As for your comment about the changes belonging to the person who makes them, I agree. The person who writes the software should be able to choose the license for that software. If the author truly wants to be able to create proprietary extensions to the software then he/she is free to start from scratch.
If you produced software to push some cultish agenda, then many will stay away from your code.
And if you produced software so that you could lock your customers into a proprietary solution, then many will stay away from your binaries. If you produced software that is supposed to be "shared," then you should not care whether it is licensed under the GPL.
One of the old linpeople IRC regulars once said something to the effect that:
"Linux and BSD both have their uses, and I use both. The two work together much better than they work apart."
(FWIW, #linpeople is where my nick came from, when I truly was a newbie)
You idiot, look at Red Hat. They're swimming in money made off other people's hard work.
So, why don't you go to redhat's ftp site and "rip them off" by downloading a copy?
Some of us have unrelated daytime jobs and are swimming in money. Why should I sell my hobby and place restrictions on what I think is cool?
If your business is threatened by what I do in my free time, change careers. Either that or lobby to make it illegal to do cool stuff for your neighbors and whoever for free. Think about it, would you want it to be illegal to mow your neighbor's lawn to help him out? Why should I make more cash when I already earn more than twice the average family income and I wish to help others enjoy life more at times?
Oh, I could put work under the BSD license. I could certainly be someone's unpaid employee like I'm talking about, but their modifications to my work could not ever be seen. The GPL has the potential to keep my work growing.
If you think BSDL sucks then dont use BSDL software
If you think the GPL sucks then don't use GPL software
Stop bitching about the other guy's license and just move on. Who ever wrote a peace of code had a CHOICE as to which license to use...no one made him/her pick one. If you don't like it find some new software or code you own.
I have to return some videotapes...
It is true that the BSD license is (in an absolute sense) more free than the GPL, in the same way as an environment where killing is allowed is more free (in an absolute sense) than one where it is not allowed.
However, in both cases, the TOTAL AMOUNT OF FREEDOM in the community is increased by denying the respective absolute freedoms, ie. trading off the loss of freedom to a few code hoarders (and to a few killers in the analogy) for a greater amount of longer-term freedom for a larger number of people.
This is hardly a new concept. Humanity has been trading off short-term freedom for long-term freedom for as long as civilization has existed. The trade-off seems to work, despite sticking in the gullet for a few purists that don't give importance to long-term views.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
A is to B as X is to Y. That doesn't mean that A equates to X.
I use both Linux and FreeBSD, and the analogy was as even-handed and as fair as I could make it. I'm sorry if your bias prevents you from seeing that.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
That is as long as you'r making your money from anything but selling the software alone. If you do
then any licance that allows you to sell binary only copies of software will do. Of cource if you'r not selling anything, just want good software cheap and fast. Then the GPL is the obvius choise(again).
FRA: STFU GTFO
I mean, there are laws to protect peoples freedom, but that means that i can't imprison, beat, rape and starve them anyway i want to! Now are you saying that because of that i'm not really free? Same thing in software.
FRA: STFU GTFO
This is perhaps the millionthst time I explain this:
The thing that people claiming that BSD is more free than GPL overlook is this: every freedom has an adverse side to it. Let's look at it.
What does making a piece of software proprietary (which BSD allows) mean? It means restricting its use, i.e. taking away freedom from other people, just like kidnapping somebody means taking away his freedom to go wherever he wants to, just like killing a man means taking away all his freedoms.
In other words: in a world where everybody has every freedom, kidnapping and even murder would be absolutely legal. On the other hand, it means that anybody can be stripped of any freedom by anybody else at any time, which is obviously not what man wants, hence the invention of law.
What we now face is the choice between two freedoms: the freedom to restrict somebody elses use of a piece of software and the freedom to use software unrestricted (with the restriction of not having the freedom to take away this freedom from somebody else). The latter is what the GPL provides and I'd choose it over the former any day.
bye
schani
This isn't an article, it's just some kid ranting.
:-)
Whether he's right or wrong about BSD, the fact is he hasn't researched anything, nor has he even formed a coherent thought.
That shouldn't have been an article on OsOpinion; it should have been posted in the talkback forum.
Hell, if it had been posted here it would have been moderated down.
For end user applications, I think GPL is a great license: it makes companies share their modifications while allowing commercial distribution.
For libraries, I think GPL is not very good. The reason is the following. Development and research labs often start software development without making an up-front commitment to building open source software. Their projects are released as open source as an afterthought, when plans for commercialization fail, when there is no market for the software, or if a competitor became number one in the market and there is no profitable business in being second. Some companies may also release successful products in open source after a few years on the market, as they figure out that the money is in support, consulting, and add-ons.
Getting free software that way is not perfect, but much (if not most) free software was created that way (even a lot of software we may not think of like that--remember that many universities and basic research labs also have intellectual property rights to the works of their students, professors, and researchers).
Many of those institutions will not want to make an early commitment to making their software free. But with GPL libraries, they would have to.
LGPL and BSD both allow development and research labs to write software that will fit in smoothly with the free software infrastructure while allowing those institutions to keep their options open. If those institutions can't build their software on LGPL or BSD licenses, the software is going to be built on proprietary licenses and isn't going to make it out.
So, I think the GPL/LGPL approach for applications/libraries is a good one. GPL/BSD is also good. Both GPL and BSD have their uses.
As for a more temporary copyright, I think scaling back copyright to its original duration (or even shorter for software), possibly with an open source requirement, would be good public policy and serve the purposes of the copyright act.
But it's unlikely to happen: too many media companies have too large a stake in the current system. As people put it: every time the Mickey Mouse copyright is about to expire, Disney lobbies to get copyright protection extended for another 20 years.
If you release your software under BSD, it's still your software... You're just saying "Hi. I did this. If you want to do something with this that might make yourself some money, go for it..."
Ooops... I didn't mean to post that yet! :)
ANyways... You seemed to place value on your software, but when you release your software under the GPL, it's no longer yours. It's OURS... So that doesn't do you any good, either.
I thought BSD requires you to leave copyrights in place... So, it's still your software, you're just letting everyone do whatever they want to do with it, without regard for you. If they want to re-release their code back to you, that's nice of them.
And as it's been said all over... how has the GPL protected anyone from Redhat, VA Linux, Cobalt, or any others from profiting from YOUR work? Only if you were in a visible position were you offered any stock. That sounds fair.
For the purpose of free software, "the software" is the most advanced version of the original code or any fork thereof. Even a proprietary fork. Therefore, software (not code, software) released under the BSDL isn't guarenteed to stay free. Under the (L)GPL, it is.
cheers,
sklein
To me, it's a good compromise between the two. I use it when I can.
Commercial projects can use the code; they just have to publish *my* code, and changes to my code, when they use it. Wrapping my code into a library prevents infection of their code.
And, of course, GPL, X, BSD, Artistic, and all sorts of other licensed projects can use it.
Who loses?
Disclosure: My current project is currently GPL, but that's because I borrowed some GPL'd code early on, while I was still learning the Qt, KDE, and Linux APIs. My rewrites for KDE 2 will supercede the GPL code, allowing me to re-license LGPL.
Note also that when you abide by laws of your country you give up your *freedom* to kill anybody you see on the street.
Newsflash: freedom does not automatically equate to 'good'. BSD gives you freedom to do something very nasty with your software or someone else's software. It has never happened but then BSD isn't used as widely as Windows, not to mention Linux.
False security? Never stood in court? Basically, what you are saying is "since we all gonna die eventually, why don't we just off ourselves right now with minimal hassle?"
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
So, you demand that all people return modifications of your code to you, but you want a license on their code that does not require the same of you? Sounds like a double standard to me. Did you ever think that other people might prefer *your* code to be under the BSD as well?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes ... that restricts me."
A very common misconception. Don't feel ashamed for falling into the trap. Believe it or not, BSD code is copyrighted! Yes, folk, that right, copyrighted.
So what happens if Microsoft takes my code? Nothing! I still have it. The only thing I do not have is that code that Microsoft, and Microsoft ALONE created. Since my code is still mine, and still copyrighted, Microsoft cannot demand any onerous duties upon users of MY software.
Demanding that all my stuff derived from your stuff should be given back to you is absurd and antithetical to freedom. If I shared a bag of apples with you, then turned around and demanded any pies that you made with them, I wasn't really sharing my apples after all.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"Of course, I can take gcc, slap my own copyright on top, and market it as JasonCC. All of this is perfectly legal providing that I release it under the GPL."
If you do that, you will soon find yourself in court. You can copyright your modifications to gcc separately, but you have no ownership rights to anyone else's code.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"And keep in mind that FSF could *NOT* withdraw the GPL from gcc."
Balderdash! They, as the legal owner of gcc can do whatever they want with it, including changing the license or assigning the copyright elsewhere. No, they can't change the license on your *copy*, but what you have is just that, a copy.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"Perhaps you should look proprietary up in the dictionary before you apply it to gcc."
-----
Proprietary: (1) of, relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor (2) used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right.
Proprietor : one who has the legal right or exclusive title to something : OWNER
-----
Proprietary software is owned software. The FSF owns gcc. By retaining a copyright, they have retained exclusive legal rights to gcc.
The FSF is the owner and proprietor of gcc, and thus gcc is proprietary. Perhaps you should use a real dictionary, instead of the redefinitions the FSF uses.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Yes, if you want to split hairs, you can make money from GPL'd programs, but it's extremely difficult and doubtful whether it's sustainable in the long-term.
It seems to me that there are enough examples of people who have made substantial sums of money from GPL'ed code they wrote to make your claims very doubtful. One of the better examples is the long-term success of Ghostscript.
One of the things that bothers me about redistribution of modified BSDL'ed software is the issue of ownership. From my understanding of copyright law, derivative works are owned by the original copyright holder.
This means if I make some modifications to BSDL'ed code and then decide to release the result as a commercial product in binary-only form I may not own the copyright to the resulting product. While IANAL it seems to me that this could come back to haunt me some time in the future.
I would be most interested in what the interpitation of this sticky point is from those with good experience in the BSD community.
The article writer doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. It's just a big rant about how BSD is better because it programmers to make momey off their code, while GNU doesn't. This of course is completely untrue.
Don't waste your time. This is unworthly of slashdot.
Yet another war, BSD vs GPL, BSD vs Linux, ad nauseum. How about something new.
But I'm guessing Gnu Public Virus?
A little emotive, but I can see what they mean. Especially as the infectious aspect is my major complaint and the least defensible section.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
We could all do well to remember this as a general principle when talking about licensing.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Oh, no, that's unfair.
As a programmer (not a very active programmer, but a programmer nonetheless) I can see the attraction of the GPL for my code. It stops anyone from taking it and then releasing a modified version without crediting or reimbursing me, or even providing me with the opportunity to do the same to their program. That's a real attraction, and pretty much what the GPL offers to programmers.
The BSD license, OTOH, is very little away from being PD - it's little more than a 'do what you want' license. As such, if you've BSD'd your code, I can treat it as a very useful resource. It gives me library code I can use with basically no strings attached. That it EXTREMELY useful.
There's no double-standards in that by any means. I'm merely stating the ideals for many.
Personally?
I'm not a total free software enthusiast. It has its place, but I also feel I have a right to determine what to do with my work and to gain financial reward for my effort. I don't think a service & support business model is viable in the long-term, so I'm not trying that one out.
So, if and when I produce something big it gets released as closed-source. It might ultimately get a source release, but that's not going to be instant.
Silly little stuff which I write to fulfil a silly little need of my own gets thrown out as free as a bird. It's cost me next to nothing and I'm happier for having a copy.
But what free license? BSD, every time. That way I'm contributing to the general library of code for all other programmers to use as they see fit. If I GPL it, I'm only doing that for GPL coders and I'd prefer to benefit the many once I've said I have no further use for a product.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Depends on your perspective. From the point of view of someone who is not the original author (or the copyright holder, if they are not the same) then BSD is more free. You can do what you want with the code. But for the author/copyright holder, GPL has an advantage that noone can take your code and improve it without the changes being available to you.
If I were releasing code under a free licence, I would choose the GPL. If I were using someone elses code to incorporate into a commercial product, I'd prefer it be under the BSDL.
--
E_NOSIG
Countless times I've read the nice little quote from B.Franklin about how giving up freedom for security deserves neither, heck, it's almost quoted religiously here.
Why do I bring this up? Quite simple actually, and I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm just writing what I feel and see. You all (most) consistantly contradict yourself, by quoting that quote from BF, then go use the GPL, you contradict yourself. Indeed when you use the GPL and develop under it you are giving up freedom for false security, I'll explain:
note: the author has real freedom over the code he/she has written.
anyone that develops/adds on to a GPL'd program gives up his/her *freedom* to make it proprietary or do whatever he/she wants. Since the code they are working on was GPL'd by someone else anything modifications they make must be released under the GPL and source made available.
what security from this 'protection' have you gained? The source will always be available? sure, can companies make proprietary products? Not legally, and has the GPL stood up in court? not yet it hasn't. So how do you prove someone took your code and made it proprietary? reverse engineer? That's illegal. Even if it wasn't illegal, just how are you going to prove to a court that *might* be able to do perl (really stretching it) is going to be able to decern from assembly code (compiler optimized assembly code at that) that it is indeed your code? They can't, only way would be for to release the code. So I say, the security that you claim is 'protection', and feel is gained by giving up your freedom, is indeed right along the lines of the very quote you'll use tomorrow from BF.
but it's just like everything else on slashdot isnt it?
NT crashes, it's headline *news* about how bad NT is, but if linux does, well it's the perl_mod, or the sql server you're using.. anything but linux.
intel has a PSN on their new chips, woe to them, privacy privacy privacy!@#! then the very next day have a post on AC's on slashdot, that they should have to register, but that's different right? got something to say put a name behind it right?
Course i could probably go on and on. =)
i cant write, or spell, i code thanks.
The difference is that nobody really gives a damn about the IP owned by RedHat or VA. Everything of actual value, the GPL code, will always remain available to to everyone. And since Redhat is actually adding value to it, by writing new code and producing a viable market for it, we all win by helping them out, whether we own stock or not. The relationship is symbiotic, rather than parasitical.
It protects against closed source extensions AND allows linking to non-GPL'ed open source programs and libraries. The GPL is a politically motivated virus that should be avoided at all cost.
There exists a definition of free such that BSDL is free. There exists a definition of free such that GPL is free. Therefore there exists a definition, ie meaningA OR meaningB, so that both are free. Therefore _both_ are free, for some definition of the word free.
Both are free for different definitions of free. True, but irrelevant to the veracity of the original statement. The original statement does imply that the required definition might be a bit of a stretch.
You can define symbiosis as _mutual_ parasitism. /. readers and such.
Good post, BTW. I think that the commercial value of RedHat, as witnessed by its stock value, lies not in its Intellectual Property (which is GPL), but in its ability to bridge the gap between the suits and the (hrmmph,hrmmph)
If you think BSDL vs GPL is fun, imagine getting closed source and open source to play nice with each other. And the implications for anyone who manages to get it right. It is quite conceivable that RedHat is seriously _undervalued_.
Somehow you managed to capture the essence of the whole thing. I'm still laughing.
The GPL isnt meant to prevent anyone from profiting. It accomplishes other things. The GPL has prevents Redhat, VA and Cobalt from turning things proprietary. It prevents Redhat from adding gratious incompatibilities that they dont tell anyone about for the purpose of making binaries that run on Redhat run on Redhat only. The code is still there to read.
As far as temporary proprietary licenses there's been the Ghostscript license. The FSF has a stance on that issue, I believe.
:)
In my opinion companies believe a bit too much in their own 'features' worth; if you look at the average proprietary UNIX, the age of free software merged into it is in the ballpark of 18 to 24 months _anyway_. The time from release to a software base (apart from a demo or two) actually using those features is _more_ than 18 to 24 months. Hell, the time from release of new software until we even have a few production systems with it on at the place I work is more than 12 months.
And the time from release until I will actually use, as a programmer, an extension not available on all platforms we use is about the age of the universe.
Its really too bad, but they are wasting their time; nobody cares. If its Different its bad. if its Different But Great! its still bad.
It is sometimes acceptable to use proprietary software in systems development, but guess why we still have systems that are completely unsupported and not y2k safe running? Well, we have this system that uses an application whose license server is still tied to an extremely outdated machine, but the company producing the software doesnt even know how to generate new license keys for that software. Of course, theyd be happy to let us pay for an upgrade, only the upgrade is different so we would have to rewrite a lot of the system, etc etc. A temporary proprietary license would actually have been good in this case though, since that would have allowed me to just remove the license check and shut those damn machines down.
Oh, well, Im annoyance rambling.
People seem to think it's the GPL's fault that it can infect things. The GPL gains this power ONLY through copyright law. It is copyright law that "infects" your modification to an original work, granting "ownership" of that modification to the original author. That author has the legal right to decide what to do with it. BSD? Do whatever. GPL? Use it only under the same terms as the original work. Without the "derivative work" notion, the GPL would have no power.
If you want true BSD-style freedom? Why copyright your code? What real difference is there between a non-advertising clause BSD license and placing your code into the public domain?
I'm glad that all 3 licenses exist. If I ever get around to writing releasable software (grin), I'll be glad to have the GPL, LGPL, and BSDL at my disposal.
Different licenses go well with different motivations. Personally (and I haven't really cemented my opinons here yet), I think GPL is best for large projects worked on by several programmers because it protects the work of a community. BSDL is for those less ambitious projects where you just want to create some code and let anybody use it without legal headaches.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
rpm.org anyone ? and srpms contain source, rpms spec is published, the RPM code is GPLed. Go hang yourself from the tree you used to write this post.
I use the BSD license. Why? It doesn't necessarily have much to do with the terms of the license itself, but rather with the ideological baggage that one is forced to carry when using the GPL.
The GPL includes at the beginning "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." This means that I cannot use the GPL without, for example, the preamble. The GPL doesn't fall under the GPL; while RMS feels that I should make my code available to others to build on, and that all these changes should be made public for others to build off of, I cannot build my own (different) ideas off the GPL. Why is this important? I don't use the GPL because I don't like the ideology expressed in the preamble, and until I am given the opportunity to remove the preamble for my code, I will only use the BSD license.
I disagree with the statement "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it." I don't feel that most licenses are designed to take away my freedom, they're designed to make money for the owners by not extending me every possible priveledge. Free software is, in my opinion, a priveledge and not a right.
I also disagree with the statement "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." I don't think that's true, I think we're talking about both, in that if we prevent the price from being free (if only in theory) then we aren't truly giving people true freedom; that the GPL does permit the software to be free doesn't mean that I can/should/will put up with this statement.
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." I have a big problem with this statement. As outlined above, my belief that this is a priveledge and not a right means that this first sentence is off base. I'm making these restrictions because I want something done with my software. And, if I change the license, which as the owner I can do, I may ask you to surrender your "rights" to use future versions of my software (though I cannot ask you to stop using the version I've already licensed to you). Further, none of this is a responsibility that I trust you to carry out, this is all a legal requirement, and if you don't follow the terms of the license I can sue you.
There are some problems with the actual terms of the license, which I won't get into, and I would still choose the BSD license for some circumstances, but I might use the GPL for others if I were permitted to change it. For now, I will either keep with the BSDl, or write my own license.
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
1 Slow news day
1 1/2 cups bad osOpinion author, finely chopped
1 Holy war
1/2 tsp. Microsoft beer humour
Put the slow news day and holy war into the blender and add Microsoft beer humour to taste. Garnish with bad osOpinion author.
Serve cold. Makes about 1-2 servings.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
This guy has it all backwards. The BSD license is ahead of its time. When all software is free, and the thought that it should be proprietary becomes generally accepted as absurd, the BSDL will be the perfect solution for almost everyone, and the restrictions the GPL imposes will no longer be needed.
However, not all software is free, and many free software developers are concerned that their work will be exploited by companies, without receiving any benefits in return from them. So they choose the GPL, because it forces anyone who benefits by their work to give everyone those same benefits. These developers tend to write their software for others, in the hope that others will improve it for them. Other developers tend to write their software for themselves, and therefore don't care what others do with it, because they already have what they want. These developers choose the BSDL.
The argument that GPL developers are hypocrites is based on the assumption that all freedom is unchecked. Any democratic supporter will tell you that there is no such thing as unchecked freedom, and that freedom extends only so far as to benefit everyone. One is not free to take others' belongings from them. One is not free to make false, degrading statements about others. Freedom is not unchecked. Licence, the abuse of freedom, is unchecked. In this way, the GPL remains "free" while only allowing the things that benefit everyone. Think of it in this way: if an author writes his software under the BSDL, and a company is free to take it and sell improvements under a proprietary license (benefit from the author), then that author is no longer free to benefit from someone who benefited from him in the first place.
The use of the GPL and the BSDL is decided by individual authors and their needs. What everyone needs to do is respect their decisions, and end this long-standing flame war once and for all.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Maybe I am not the most experienced slashdotter, but I do think some people are missing the point of it all. Money is definately not the center of the universe.
If you want to give back to the community, a community I might mention that has provided me with a very stable os and tools, then release your code under that very same license (generaly gpl).
If your only concern is about losing wealth, the decision is really quite simply, then don't do it.
Personally I don't have a problem with commercial software or closed source products. Just please be up front...if your concern is to make a profit, fine, be honest.
The point is, while the BSD license grants an individual more control over his product, freedom on the side of the consumer is notably lost.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
This is actually not a new idea. In fact, it's come up in converstaions with various folks for over a year by now. It started with some conversations which I had with Jim Gettys, who is widely credited as being the "father" of the X Windows system.
His basic observation was this: Many companies made various improvements to the X code, which they would keep as proprietary and give them a temporary edge in the marketplace. However, since the X code base was continually evolving, over time it became less attractive to maintain, since it would mean that they would have to be continually merging their changes into the evolving code base. Also, typically the advantage in having the proprietary new feature or speed enhancement typically degraded over time, since most companies are quite happy if it takes 18-24 months for their competitor to match a feature in their release.
So sometime later, the companies would very often donate their heretofore proprietary extension to the X consortium, which would then fold it into the public release of X. Jim Gettys' complaint about the GPL is that it by removing this ability for companies to recoup the investment needed to make major developmental improvements to Open Source code bases, companies don't have the incentive do this type of infrastructural improvements to GPL'ed projects.
Anyway, I had written up a more detailed writeup of my ideas, which I called the "Temporary Propietary License". I'd appreciate comments from folks as to what the think. Please note that I am not doctrinaire about licenses. Licenses are tools which software authors use to achieve certain goals, and nothing more. This is just one more tool which might be useful for certain projects.
BSD is free, period.... to people who want to use the code, not the author.
... that restricts me.
Why not the author?
If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes
Under the GPL, I'm free to use any changes anyone else has made to my software. We all are. It then slowly becomes our software. No one company can claim its theirs at all.
I prefer the definition of freedom of the latter.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Did you really quote me before saying all that? Yes, you did. Lets see it again for the first time:
... that restricts me."
"If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes
The restriction is my benefiting from changes to my code. Under the GPL, I will always be able to use modifications to my own code. Under BSD, I may not. You can take your changes private and I'll never see them or benefit from them.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The BSD license is free. period.
The GPL can better be defined as open source. What you do with the code is limited by a number of restrictions.
The GPL license believes in enforced community where you must give back your changes. You do not own the code The community does.
The BSD license relies on the possibility that some may return code because they will realize that if they give back, someone else will and the product will become better. It also recognizes that time is money and you may want to get paid for the extension of that code, through a proprietary offering. Each programmer owns his or her code. Despite that extension of the code becoming proprietary (or not, if they want), the original is still free.
What I do believe is that no license is better than another. Each has a particular purpose and mindset behind it. Use whichever meets your goals.
I don't think that anyone can deny that the GPL has a definite political agenda behind it.
The BSDL is fairly free of politics, at least to the extent that any human interaction can be.
Both are "free", for some definition of the word free. These arguments are purely political.
Human beings have argued over politics since Thuack the Caveman smacked Oog over the head for leadership of the tribe. We might as well argue Democrat versus Republican, or capitalist versus communist, or Throbbing Gristle versus SPK.
I didn't choose my OS based on the license. I chose it because it was the right tool for the job I do. I would be perfectly happy to have FreeBSD available under the GPL. I would be perfectly happy to have Linux available under the BSDL. Under either license, users return code to the project.
Either way, as an end-user, I get software that doesn't suck. It might not be great, all the time, but it doesn't suck.
Perhaps Slashdot should open a new section: Political License Flaming.
Copyright and license are two different things. You get a copyright on your software, which extends for 95 years, simply by writing down a copy of your software. You can put a dated copyright notice within the software, and you can formally register your copyright, but it's not necessary. As the copyright owner, you can license it to others however you want, including BSDL or GPL.
I doubt that there is or should be such a thing as a "three-year temporary copyright"; creating one would involve legislation and treaty.
Patent its "viral nature", and rename it the "General Pageview License".
Then, advertizing revenues from online flamewars will belong to the owners of the virus, the FSF. BSDers can't complain because they wouldn't presume to tell anyone what to do. Discussion forum operators will still run them because what else can they put up on slow news days.
Don't be silly. The FSF has exclusive TITLE over gcc - but they have given away the exclusive RIGHT over its copying, use, etc. Now according to the law they are still proprietor, but by any sane definition that pays attention to real world situations, they are not. In the same sense that OJ is a murderer, though not legally.
And keep in mind that FSF could *NOT* withdraw the GPL from gcc. They have granted the right to all people and the law does not allow them to ungrant it. That would be violation of contract.
The BSD license grants the author of a program no greater right than anyone else. The GPL allows proprietary releases, but *only from the author*. That's not in the *spirit* of the GPL, but it is in accord with the legality. And so we have reiserfs and aladin ghostscript.
The GPL actually offers the greater possibility of reward for the author. The BSD offers greater possibility of reward for the non-authors, and in doing so reduces the possibility of reward for the authors. That's why the OpenBSD project has to put a proprietary license on their cd layout; if it were under the BSD license they would have hardly any way for monetary reward.
Of the reasons to support BSD licenses, rewarding the author is not a good one. Releasing a product under BSD actually sacrifices that ability (while granting others virtually unrestricted use of your program). The BSD license is really public domain but with requirement for credit.
(Draw your own conclusions on which is more appropriate for what.)
But what about the development of custom applications for use in private enterprise in ways that are not general purpose or of interest to the general public? BSD/MIT allows an open source business to sell a service like that which can benefit free software and proprietary software at the same time. GPL protects the tools and OS. LGPL is ok for protecting general-purpose libraries. But BSD/MIT allows the enterprise to exist.
It is an alternative to earning a living working for speculative open-source companies building a brand around the GPL. How many can get venture backing for their business and win the IPO lottery? But everyone can try their hand at building custom applications.
this is not possible with linux, as paragraph #7 of the GPL prohibits distribution of the software in this case.
another license which is more free in the patents issue is the MPL/NPL. here the original author grants the user a license for all his patents necessary to use the software.
somthing which really should be changed, is that the open source definition doesn't mention patents at all. software is not free unless it's free of patent alfortihms or comes with a license to use them.
software is protected under the copyright- and the patent-law. ( unlike physical machines, which are just protected by patents ). the copyright-law is necessary for free software to be able to enforce the copyleft to keep it free. the patent-law doesn't bring any benefit to free software. and we should as soon as possible start to learn how to deal with it.
patent-law gets promoted to foster innovations. i think this is plain silly. look it the innovations which where used to build the internet. the internet's basement is free software (apache, bind, sendmail, linux, *bsd, perl, php, majordomo, ... ) and all these didn't get developed BECAUSE of patent-law, but DESPITE it.
we need to deal with patents in all open source licenses and in the open source definition! write to Your congress-guy today!
For one thing, any claim here is only as good as the definition of "freedom". When one group says the BSD licence is more free because it allows A, while another group says the GPL is more free because it allows B and A and B are mutually exclusive, something is definitly wrong.
The GPL limits some things you can do (I would stop long and hard before calling them freedoms), but I find that it usually does so for a good reason.
But on the other hand, I guess all that can be said about BSD vs. GPL (or vice versa) has been said. I would however like to add that BSD is the licence that allows others to make money off your code, and not the other way around. So, in the end, the only way to prevent this is to do it first. (Other's might feel different about this, but I wouldn't like it if other's could sell value-added versions of my program.)
What is the difference between being chained to a huge vendor like Microsoft or to a license that tells you exactly what you can and can not do with the code you just incorporated into a piece of sourcecode you downloaded? In the end, you are deprived of your right to do whatever the hell you want, which is never good.
How many people would buy a car with the hood welded shut?
Not only would the manufacturer have you rely soley on them for maintenance, but you would also be prevented from learning how the thing works and making your own improvements, etc.
Anything that prevents the free exchange of information is just a hop, skip and a jump away from slavery.
You want to protect your investment? Fine. Do it without taking away personal liberties such as curiousity an innovation.
Looking at you, I agree
of course more free
around here. There are a lot of brainwashed people who think Stallman and the FSF really mean freedom when they say it.
Stallman/FSF are just as borgish as Microsoft. They attempt to assimilate all software. I think the icon for GNU should have the borg decorations. They are just as scary as Microsoft.
BSDL is definately free more free than GPL
but living in a capital society, I'd have to say the GPL is more financially rewarding than the BSDL but it you can't make up your mind, just write your own license.