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 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.
OS Opinion is like Slashdot without the stories.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
Why, oh why, was the language necessary?
The comment this AC was replying to was reprehensible. I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by our anonymous friend. But this is slashdot and so comments against the prevailing current are always harder to get noticed. And by swearing he'll probably get marked as flamebait or a troll. For saying something which many people really could do with hearing...
Oh well.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Oh, no.
That is spectacularly unfair. ACs certainly seem to generate more than their fair share of the rubbish, but there are plenty of inteligent posters who post AC for whatever reason. Sometimes it's so they can post information without fear of comeback - a service for which we're all grateful - and sometimers it's just that they prefer anonymity for whatever reason. Bottom line, though - there are plenty of good AC comments. Scroll through any article out there and you'll find them.
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.
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
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)
Yes, but the real question is if this is a sustainable business model. If forced to provide all changes to your product, competition will flourish and this sector of the market as a whole will reach a point of diminishing returns -- from which some will leave market and others will join -- producing a cycle that is not very good in the eyes of the shareholder.
:) A lot of projects would not be possible without community input and work. We can all produce a product that *we* want without having to worry about commercial viability. We're directly fulfilling a need, usually without the exchange of money. This is very efficient.
;).
However, the hype surrounding linux has also brought proprietary software built around that free software. This model is possibly sustainable if handled properly due to at least temporary product differentiation. If you offer product differentiation that fulfills a market need that free software does not, then you can likely become profitable.
Unfortunately, this model is not similar to the proprietary model that microsoft runs. Therefore, the market capitalization surrounding these companies is almost completely based on hype. Why? Because this new model relies on support, service, and partially proprietary extensions -- and these industries do not have large profit margins.
Companies such as VA Linux offer very little product or service differentiation in their own specialization. If they can move more towards producing real solutions, they can become a solid player. This sector of the industry is growing at an exponential pace, and there seems to be room for many. They will, however, have to compete with the likes of IBM who have used their past reputation and power of brand name to partially reinvent themselves in this changing market.
SGI, at a glance, seems to be the victim of a few very large long term strategic planning mistakes. In my opinion, if they can provide sufficient product differentiation and added value to forego the recently commodified pc market, or cater specifically to the high end and niche markets, they have a very good future.
Again, those last three giants aren't even specifically in the free software market. They are only leveraging its hype due to the me-too effect. It's kind of like price wars in other industries that come out of nowhere.
Getting away from the market giants, there are a number of viable models that can and will work. Ones that I can currently think of are:
a) companies that are essentially in another industry that is not directly tied to software can collaborate with other companies in the same or other industries to produce open software that will benifit everyone.
example: I prototype a particular java library that is part of a bigger picture in my company. The resources involved in creating this library would be a large drain on project budget. I come up with the idea to make this a community project and talk with friends in other companies (or a less organized community at large). We decide that we can split costs by collaborating on producing all the parts of this library (as well as qa). We GPL this product because it is not part of our bigger software or solution model.
I would also note that I get flak because our traditional model is to monopolize anything and everything our employees produce. I eventually convince management that this is a positive symbiotic relationship.
b) one company comes up with an idea for a standardized format or protocol, but needs industry support for it to be successful
example: Livepicture Inc conceives the flashpix format. It works with Microsoft corp, HP, and Eastman/Kodak to produce this image format. It then donates this format to the DIG.
c) traditional service/support model based around open source software
example: i produce a high level language to help produce ISAPI or NSAPI modules. I completely open source this software but rely on support and maintenance for revenue. I also collect bug reports and fixes from the community because they have access to the code.
d) completely open software except a couple of restrictions
example: PHP. It's completely open except for the zend engine -- which is limited in that you can not use it in *other* proprietary products. You can, however use PHP wherever you want as long as it is still PHP
e) open source software that is limited in that changes must come back to the company of creation. They own all changes.
example: SCSL. Many companies wish only to use a language, application, or protocol. They do not wish to commercially gain from it. Now that they have the source, they can work it to their own ends.
f) temporarily proprietary software
example: Mysql. They have a delayed release model. They release their software under the GPL (if I'm not mistaken) when there is a sufficiently better proprietary product available. This way they can retain their advantage, but still release usable code to the public.
g) for fun or coding in free time
example: half the stuff on freshmeat?
h) academia, research sectors, or R&d at large companies
example: framework, pre commercial, standards based, or commercially unviable software
I'd like to hear any other examples if anyone has any
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.
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.)