The GPL is never going to abandon its viral nature, because its proponents really believe that they are on a moral crusade.
That is why they are cult members, a moral and political crusade using double speak propaganda such as "freedom" to attain their goals.
Software has a right to be free, they say.
Software has no rights, human beings do. They value software more than they value humans.
The GPL license is inherently incompatible with many licenses including the ISC and BSD licenses. This is due to the rapacious and BORG like assimilation design of the GPL gnusance.
Let's read the BSD terms once again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license#Terms).
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
There is NO GRANT of any rights to change the license terms given by the authors. In fact it specifically states that the following conditions must be met. They must be important, so let's look at them.
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
That's interesting, they are if you redistribute the source you must obey a few simple rules. Keep the copyright intact. Oh, this is interesting, it says "must retain". Very important those two words are.
What's this "this list of conditions" that they talk about? It's the specific list of conditions and no other list of conditions. This means one exact list as spelled out in the license. No changes. No additions. For if you made changes or additions you'd be violating those two magic words, "must retain"... "this list of conditions"!
The disclaimer is - in this discussion - easy, it's just that bit of legal mumbo jumbo at the end.
Ok, so it's now very clear that the license grants the right to distribute the source code, or binary code (as the next clause specifies).
In fact the license simply speaks of "redistributions" that are "with or without" modifications provided that the license is "retained"!
The BSD license MUST BE RETAINED EVEN IN DERIVATIVE WORKS!!! If you change the license in a derivative work you no longer have a right to make said derivative work as you are in violation of the license terms which clearly state that you "MUST RETAIN" the license as the basis for working with the code: your license terms are null and void and without effect.
The US Copyright office (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative) has this to say about derivative works:
"A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author."
Ok, to cut to the chase the BSD license terms "permit" modifications and redistributions "provided" that "this [specific] list of conditions are met"! This means that the authors are granting others the right to make derivative works AS LONG AS THE EXACT LICENSE TERMS are "retained"! This means that ALL code under a BSD license MUST be published under the BSD license - if they are being redistributed that is.
You mean it, sigh. Now you have devolved to making veiled threats. Sigh. As I said all you people what to do, as evidenced from your aggressive comments directed towards one who rocks your world with some facts, is inflame the discussion. The evidence shows that you are the flame baiters. My mistake was thinking that you wanted a dialog.
Please up your standard levels.
The term "ad hominem" is very descriptive of the attacks that the two of you have perpetrated rather than having a high quality discussion.
Please stop the ad hominem attacks and the veiled threats. Thanks guys.
Yes, that is why I said that we'd need a way to differentiate it. If you read the posting history you'd see that someone had suggested that I was suggesting BSD was viral; the reply was intended to show that no, it's not BSD that is viral but that it's Copyright Laws that are viral.
Yes, German and French copyright laws are different and authors have substantial rights in derivative works. The copyright stops you from modifying the license! You are not granted the right to change the license! You are only granted the right to make a derivative work and not change the license with BSD specifically saying that the license must be left intact as is. The ISC license, which has fewer paragraphs, grants you zero rights to adjust the license even in derivative works.
Your other points are interesting. I'm not sure how accurate though.
However, it seems that dual BSD and GPL licenses are completely at odds with each other and it is folly for anyone to issue a dual license. They are just setting the groundwork for a legal mess for themselves or subsequent developers.
What needs to change are the rapacious terms of the GPL that make it viral in the sense you spoke about, in the BORG sense of assimilation of code. What the heck is GPL forcing software that is linked with it to be under GPL; absolutely insane and communistic to the max. Hail Supreme Leader of the GNU Collective: Stallman. Join the collective at your own peril.
A compilation strategy designed to enable effective program optimization across the entire lifetime of a program. LLVM supports effective optimization at compile time, link-time (particularly interprocedural), run-time and offline (i.e., after software is installed), while remaining transparent to developers and maintaining compatibility with existing build scripts.
2.
A virtual instruction set - LLVM is a low-level object code representation that uses simple RISC-like instructions, but provides rich, language-independent, type information and dataflow (SSA) information about operands. This combination enables sophisticated transformations on object code, while remaining light-weight enough to be attached to the executable. This combination is key to allowing link-time, run-time, and offline transformations.
3.
A compiler infrastructure - LLVM is also a collection of source code that implements the language and compilation strategy. The primary components of the LLVM infrastructure are a GCC-based C & C++ front-end, a link-time optimization framework with a growing set of global and interprocedural analyses and transformations, static back-ends for the X86, X86-64, PowerPC 32/64, ARM, Thumb, IA-64, Alpha and SPARC architectures, a back-end which emits portable C code, and a Just-In-Time compiler for X86, X86-64, PowerPC 32/64 processors.
4.
LLVM does not imply things that you would expect from a high-level virtual machine. It does not require garbage collection or run-time code generation (In fact, LLVM makes a great static compiler!). Note that optional LLVM components can be used to build high-level virtual machines and other systems that need these services.
LLVM is a robust system, particularly well suited for developing new mid-level language-independent analyses and optimizations of all sorts, including those that require extensive interprocedural analysis. LLVM is also a great target for front-end development for conventional or research programming languages, including those which require compile-time, link-time, or run-time optimization for effective implementation, proper tail calls or garbage collection. We have an incomplete list of projects which have used LLVM for various purposes, showing that you can get up-and-running quickly with LLVM, giving time to do interesting things, even if you only have a semester in a University course. We also have a list of ideas for projects in LLVM.
LLVM was started by the Lifelong Code Optimization Project, led by Vikram Adve at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Since the first public release, LLVM has grown to include contributions from several other people! We welcome external contributions, so please send e-mail to llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu if you are interested in contributing code to the LLVM infrastructure.
Well it's one thing to tell someone they are wrong. It's quite another to tell them to "FO".
In fact a considerable amount of research by a number of technical people and lawyers has gone into the understanding that you are hearing. It's standard copyright law as applied to software.
Copyright Law is much more complex that you and most people realize. It also gives software authors more bite that you think. Bite that extends beyond any changes that you make to someone's software.
This is why some wisely choose to start fresh projects: to be free from the ownership of others.
On an aside since you got nasty: I suppose that you are a indoctrinated GPL-GNU cult member attack dog retorting the standard propaganda of your communistic group barking at anyone who differs in opinion? GPLers are just too afraid to really contribute their software to a true-freedom license. GPL is commune software through and through. Break free of communism, break free of GPL and regain your freedom of self determinism.
If your changes haven't qualified for a derivative work then you don't have any copyright in your changes! Do you get that?
They may have authorized you to make derivative works but not all changes are derivative works! In fact most if not all changes to open source software do not qualify as a derivative work.
Legal advice says that in such cases you gift your changes to the original authors. WOW! That is very significant.
Most importantly, they have not authorized you to make changes to the license! That means that even if in the unlikely even that your changes do qualify for a derivative work that you don't have a right to change the license as that has not been granted you!
Now that depends to some degree on which countries copyright laws are involved in a particular piece of software and how the Berne Convention may make foreign copyright laws enforceable in your country!
Unless you all but replace their program your derivative work is still owned to a large degree by the original authors and they may or may not have granted you rights to alter the license. Even if a bit of their code if left in place you can't change the license on that code.
This is why it's best to keep the license the same even when you make substantial changes to a BSD program! If the original authors pressed it they would likely prevail in court if you changed a BSD license to a GPL on their code - even with a derived work that you own.
Copyright Law is really makes it incompatible for dual licensing and relicensing. This is why you need the original authors permission for a lot of what goes on the fly now. Basically people have been much too loose and free with this for the past few decades. I suspect that we'll start seeing some case law about it soon, maybe even with this case.
Copyright law prevents you from adding to the license!
The ISC and BSD license do not grant you the right to adjust the license.
The simply grant you the right to use the software anyway you like. They don't grant you the right to change the license anyway you want!!! A very important legal distinction.
Copyright Law is VIRAL with respect to derivative works, including those covered by ISC, BSD, Apache, GPL, etc!!!
Including BSD licensed files is fine as long you don't claim to have your license cover those files. As long as they are left alone and are along for the ride you're ok.
You can even make changes to BSD files. As long as those changes don't qualify for a derivative work you can't copyright them WITHIN THE MERGED WORK! You can ship them, but you can't claim copyright because Copyright Law says you don't qualify for a copyright on non-derivative work changes.
If you make significant changes that qualify for a non-derivative work then it gets complicated. In some countries the original authors keep ownership of the derivative works! Countries like say, oh, Germany (where the driver was written)! In other countries like the USA the original authors don't gain copyright in your changes, however, unless you were granted permission to change the license on a derived work you may need to ship it with the same license.
All this has to do with Copyright Law. The Berne Convention also steps in to make things work internationally but also complicates matters significantly by extending the rights of the authors country to other countries. So a German copyright law that is different than in the USA may still have effect in the USA.
Basically the notions that the BSD isn't viral are true, but it's copyright law that exquisitely viral in nature!
The GPL is viral in other ways, so I suppose we'll need a distinction between these two meanings of "viral" so that people don't get confused.
When it is said that Copyright Laws are viral it means that the original authors rights are difficult to get rid of.
the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the code in question did the relicensing, he was well within his rights to do so.
NO, NO, NO. That file isn't in question!!!
It's the other files that weren't licensed that way that are at issue. You guys really need to find out the facts of this case! Re-read Theo's postings carefully.
You are also committing an ad hominem personal attack by asserting that this posting was a troll posting.
I most certainly am not a troll and I find it offensive that you'd think so.
If you don't like what I have to say then simply moderate it up and let people go at it and let me defend my statements, otherwise stop with the troll silliness.
IF YOUR changes are NOT substantial enough to be qualify as a derivative work then your changes WHEN MERGED with the original authors work THEN you effectively don't have any copyright in your changes that are merged!!!
However, if your changes are substantial enough, in volume, or cause a change so that the original work is different enough then you may qualify for a derivative work. However, the BSD license stipulates that you must retain the license terms, meaning that a BSD license takes hold as a precondition of your being allowed to do the work.
The same holds true of an ISC license due to copyright laws that provide the original authors rights in derivative works in countries that have those rights.
In certain countries the original authors may not gain control of your derived copyright however, it's always best to check to see the lineage of the authors in terms of which countries their copyright too effect in.
The best policy is that if you are going to want to change the license of a work that you've created a derived work of it's best to ask the original authors ahead of time before you waste your time changing the code. Permission is better than forgiveness in this case.
The main issues surrounding this have to do with copyright law and what it allows you to grant or not. It's not really a BSD or GPL issue in the general case.
Now, if someone took your new "individual" license and "stole" the code by including it in their license you'd not be too happy about it would you? Yeah, likely you'd be pissed off.
That's what this is about. Theft of copyrighted code. Really the license isn't relevant at that level. BSDers get pissed when it happens. GPLers get really pissed when it happens to them. You'd get pissed when it happens to you.
The bottom line is that while this specific situation is dealing with BSD vs. GPL and someone who stole, or attempted to steal BSD licensed code, and convert it without permission to a GPL license it's a general problem for open source software, true free software and the so called double speak of the GPL/GNU group "free software" (what a travesty their propaganda is).
This is problem even for you who create your own licenses!
Yes, the GPL is highly restrictive and prevents self-determination thus it is not "Free Software"; it's better named "communal software" or "communistic software".
The question is who put the "alternatively" in there. It does matter who. Also the question is which files are you talking about? It does matter which files.
The so called "dual license" file is not the issue IF it was dual licensed by the original author. There is another file (or set of files) that were NOT dual licensed by the original authors that were modified. This is the one in question. Please see Theo's comments for these details.
The BSD license says that the list of conditions must be retained. Copyright Law says that you can't modify the license without permission. No permission is granted to modify or amend the license, thus copyright law prevails and you loose.
So, your double "wrong" is doubly wrong.
The interpretation that any license can be added to a BSD license is incorrect.
First you'd have to pass the test of creating a derivative work under copyright law, and then you'd have to pass the test of asking permission from the original authors.
The BSD/ISC licenses allow you to do what you want with the code, not the license! There is no grant that the original work or derived works can be relicensed, or dual licensed, or have the license modified in anyway. In many countries the original authors always keep copyrights in derived works.
You need to ask permission. I recommend that you get it in writing too, just to be sure and on the safe side.
So if you don't like what someone has to say you tell them "STFU"? That's the high quality of your debate, Chandon Seldon (43083)?
Sounds like an ad hominem personal attack on your part.
The points are valid regardless if I'm a lawyer or not. Let's just say that they were vetted by a lawyer and careful reading of the wording of the license and copyright laws.
The BSD license terms require that the software, source and binary, MUST BE distributed with the same list of conditions! That means that you CAN NOT modify the conditions if you are not the original authors.
It you want to change the licensing terms YOU MUST seek the original authors permission. YES, even if you make significant changes that qualify your changes as a derivative work.
Copyright Law is quite infective about this.
If you dispute this simply show where there is a grant to add any new license terms? Simply show where there is a grant to bind the software up in the GPL?
GPLers: keep your BORG assimilation nano probes off of BSD code. Change your main license to be friendly with linking to other licensed code.
In this case the facts are that the software files in question where under a BSD license and the changes were not enough to qualify for a derivative work.
It's perfectly fine if someone publishes their programs, which happen to include BSD licensed code, under whatever license they want. However, they can't change the terms of the BSD licensed code under any circumstances.
You simply have failed to understand the distinction that the BSD code must remain BSD code for all time. No adding license terms. Nada.
Enjoy using and linking with BSD code. But don't enjoy changing it's license. Thank you.
No clause three doesn't allow someone to release derived works under GPL. SORRY! Let take a look at why shall we.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Ok, so all the following conditions MUST BE MET. With us so far GPL fans?
Here is the next clause:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Ok, the fact that it says MUST RETAIN... THIS LIST OF CONDITIONS actually means a least two things: one that the list must be kept in the license, and two, that the list of conditions MUST BE RETAINED on the code. That means that they can't be altered in anyway. That also means that attempting to add a GPL or other license isn't permitted.
* 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.
Ok, same as above.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
This one is clear.
So, it's copyright law and the wording of the BSD (and ISC) license that is infectious and keeps the code and derived works free from repressive licenses like the GPL.
Also, different countries have different copyright laws. However the Berne Software Convention enables another countries software copyright laws to have effect in your country! In Germany the original authors KEEP their right to derived works! Yikes!
OOPS! That means that you'd need their permission to add to or adjust the license terms!
Actually the best policy is to ask the original authors before starting your changes. In this case asking for permission is really way better and less costly in time, money and legal aggravation than seeking forgiveness.
The message is simple. GPLers, stay away from infecting BSD code! Change the GPL so that it's not so damed self centered and arrogant to want to be the BORG and assimilate everything by the "linking policy".
This depends on which files you are talking about in this case. Actually it seems that the so called "dual licensing" of the driver wasn't legally done for the files that are really in dispute! Since appending the GPL to a BSD licensed file itself was a violation of copyright any such GPL license is in violation and is thus the GPL license terms are null and void from having control of those files.
Who'd want a license anyway that prevented me from simply linking source code or binary code licensed under another license? That would be Totalitarian Control (which is what the GPL attempts).
True-Free Software is BSD or even better, Public Domain.
The work to the driver in this case didn't qualify as a derived work under copyright laws since the changes were not significant enough to qualify; thus they can't add a GPL to the license.
Also, it's highly questionable if they could add a GPL licensing terms even to a derived work. Certainly without asking the original authors it's highly questionable indeed since it alters their work notwithstanding what the BSD or ISC license terms say.
Remember you're building upon copyright law granting people rights or not. There are lots of different rights under copyright.
I have to admit I am a little confused. You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
1) You are confused since you are only reading the terms of the licenses and forgetting that they rest upon Copyright Laws of many countries.
2) You are mistaken that it can be closed under a commercial license. The license remains BSD, they just don't have to publish the source code.
3) It is unethical to use the GPL since for a number of reasons outlined very well in Theo's posting. Basically the changes don't qualify for a new copyright and thus it's not a derivative work and thus the authors who made the changes can't add their copyright to another's work.
4) The law is all about technical violations.
5) The sour grapes seem to be with the GPLers who want to assimilate code under the BSD license. No can do.
6) Yes, the spirit of the BSD license and Copyright Law was violated a number of times as Theo described.
7) Your summarization of the BSD license is inaccurate. You must also include all of Copyright Law into your understanding. It's do whatever with the existing license intact or what part of the few paragraphs of the BSD license didn't you understand?
8) Study Copyright Law. Leave BSD software with it's own license. You are still free to use it in your systems as long as you leave the code with it's license, otherwise you'd be well advised to keep your hands off.
9) Forcing people to share their changes back isn't freedom, it's robing them of free choice and self determinism. You are free to use BSD software as long as you adhere to the terms of the license.
Yes, your assessment is correct: Stallman and George Bush do use the same propaganda techniques to obtain control and impose their will upon the people.
Yes, the GPL robs people of the opportunity for self-determinism. When you don't have self-determinism you are not free. Therefor, the GPL doesn't provide freedom. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED).
The way that you clearly expressed your thoughts on this was outstanding! I congratulate you for your insightful and elegant posting. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL is never going to abandon its viral nature, because its proponents really believe that they are on a moral crusade.
... "this list of conditions"!
That is why they are cult members, a moral and political crusade using double speak propaganda such as "freedom" to attain their goals.
Software has a right to be free, they say.
Software has no rights, human beings do. They value software more than they value humans.
The GPL license is inherently incompatible with many licenses including the ISC and BSD licenses. This is due to the rapacious and BORG like assimilation design of the GPL gnusance.
Let's read the BSD terms once again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license#Terms).
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
There is NO GRANT of any rights to change the license terms given by the authors. In fact it specifically states that the following conditions must be met. They must be important, so let's look at them.
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
That's interesting, they are if you redistribute the source you must obey a few simple rules. Keep the copyright intact. Oh, this is interesting, it says "must retain". Very important those two words are.
What's this "this list of conditions" that they talk about? It's the specific list of conditions and no other list of conditions. This means one exact list as spelled out in the license. No changes. No additions. For if you made changes or additions you'd be violating those two magic words, "must retain"
The disclaimer is - in this discussion - easy, it's just that bit of legal mumbo jumbo at the end.
Ok, so it's now very clear that the license grants the right to distribute the source code, or binary code (as the next clause specifies).
In fact the license simply speaks of "redistributions" that are "with or without" modifications provided that the license is "retained"!
The BSD license MUST BE RETAINED EVEN IN DERIVATIVE WORKS!!! If you change the license in a derivative work you no longer have a right to make said derivative work as you are in violation of the license terms which clearly state that you "MUST RETAIN" the license as the basis for working with the code: your license terms are null and void and without effect.
The US Copyright office (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative) has this to say about derivative works:
"A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author."
Ok, to cut to the chase the BSD license terms "permit" modifications and redistributions "provided" that "this [specific] list of conditions are met"! This means that the authors are granting others the right to make derivative works AS LONG AS THE EXACT LICENSE TERMS are "retained"! This means that ALL code under a BSD license MUST be published under the BSD license - if they are being redistributed that is.
This means
You mean it, sigh. Now you have devolved to making veiled threats. Sigh. As I said all you people what to do, as evidenced from your aggressive comments directed towards one who rocks your world with some facts, is inflame the discussion. The evidence shows that you are the flame baiters. My mistake was thinking that you wanted a dialog.
Please up your standard levels.
The term "ad hominem" is very descriptive of the attacks that the two of you have perpetrated rather than having a high quality discussion.
Please stop the ad hominem attacks and the veiled threats. Thanks guys.
Yes, that is why I said that we'd need a way to differentiate it. If you read the posting history you'd see that someone had suggested that I was suggesting BSD was viral; the reply was intended to show that no, it's not BSD that is viral but that it's Copyright Laws that are viral.
Yes, German and French copyright laws are different and authors have substantial rights in derivative works. The copyright stops you from modifying the license! You are not granted the right to change the license! You are only granted the right to make a derivative work and not change the license with BSD specifically saying that the license must be left intact as is. The ISC license, which has fewer paragraphs, grants you zero rights to adjust the license even in derivative works.
Your other points are interesting. I'm not sure how accurate though.
However, it seems that dual BSD and GPL licenses are completely at odds with each other and it is folly for anyone to issue a dual license. They are just setting the groundwork for a legal mess for themselves or subsequent developers.
What needs to change are the rapacious terms of the GPL that make it viral in the sense you spoke about, in the BORG sense of assimilation of code. What the heck is GPL forcing software that is linked with it to be under GPL; absolutely insane and communistic to the max. Hail Supreme Leader of the GNU Collective: Stallman. Join the collective at your own peril.
Maybe LLMV (http://llvm.org) will be of interest to OpenBSD folks.
Highly BSD compatible. Advanced.
True-Freedom BSD-Style License (no Communistic-License like GPL).
http://llvm.org/releases/1.3/LICENSE.TXT
While LLVM is currently being developed using GCC it's intended to stand alone at some point.
From the LLVM web site: http://llvm.org./
Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) is:
1.
A compilation strategy designed to enable effective program optimization across the entire lifetime of a program. LLVM supports effective optimization at compile time, link-time (particularly interprocedural), run-time and offline (i.e., after software is installed), while remaining transparent to developers and maintaining compatibility with existing build scripts.
2.
A virtual instruction set - LLVM is a low-level object code representation that uses simple RISC-like instructions, but provides rich, language-independent, type information and dataflow (SSA) information about operands. This combination enables sophisticated transformations on object code, while remaining light-weight enough to be attached to the executable. This combination is key to allowing link-time, run-time, and offline transformations.
3.
A compiler infrastructure - LLVM is also a collection of source code that implements the language and compilation strategy. The primary components of the LLVM infrastructure are a GCC-based C & C++ front-end, a link-time optimization framework with a growing set of global and interprocedural analyses and transformations, static back-ends for the X86, X86-64, PowerPC 32/64, ARM, Thumb, IA-64, Alpha and SPARC architectures, a back-end which emits portable C code, and a Just-In-Time compiler for X86, X86-64, PowerPC 32/64 processors.
4.
LLVM does not imply things that you would expect from a high-level virtual machine. It does not require garbage collection or run-time code generation (In fact, LLVM makes a great static compiler!). Note that optional LLVM components can be used to build high-level virtual machines and other systems that need these services.
LLVM is a robust system, particularly well suited for developing new mid-level language-independent analyses and optimizations of all sorts, including those that require extensive interprocedural analysis. LLVM is also a great target for front-end development for conventional or research programming languages, including those which require compile-time, link-time, or run-time optimization for effective implementation, proper tail calls or garbage collection. We have an incomplete list of projects which have used LLVM for various purposes, showing that you can get up-and-running quickly with LLVM, giving time to do interesting things, even if you only have a semester in a University course. We also have a list of ideas for projects in LLVM.
LLVM was started by the Lifelong Code Optimization Project, led by Vikram Adve at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Since the first public release, LLVM has grown to include contributions from several other people! We welcome external contributions, so please send e-mail to llvmdev@cs.uiuc.edu if you are interested in contributing code to the LLVM infrastructure.
Well it's one thing to tell someone they are wrong. It's quite another to tell them to "FO".
In fact a considerable amount of research by a number of technical people and lawyers has gone into the understanding that you are hearing. It's standard copyright law as applied to software.
Copyright Law is much more complex that you and most people realize. It also gives software authors more bite that you think. Bite that extends beyond any changes that you make to someone's software.
This is why some wisely choose to start fresh projects: to be free from the ownership of others.
On an aside since you got nasty: I suppose that you are a indoctrinated GPL-GNU cult member attack dog retorting the standard propaganda of your communistic group barking at anyone who differs in opinion? GPLers are just too afraid to really contribute their software to a true-freedom license. GPL is commune software through and through. Break free of communism, break free of GPL and regain your freedom of self determinism.
Ah, so when you don't like something you tell the person to FO? Wow, that's an great way to encourage debate. But I guess that's not what you want.
I'm simply telling you what Copyright Law says. Read it. Learn.
If your changes haven't qualified for a derivative work then you don't have any copyright in your changes! Do you get that?
They may have authorized you to make derivative works but not all changes are derivative works! In fact most if not all changes to open source software do not qualify as a derivative work.
Legal advice says that in such cases you gift your changes to the original authors. WOW! That is very significant.
Most importantly, they have not authorized you to make changes to the license! That means that even if in the unlikely even that your changes do qualify for a derivative work that you don't have a right to change the license as that has not been granted you!
Now that depends to some degree on which countries copyright laws are involved in a particular piece of software and how the Berne Convention may make foreign copyright laws enforceable in your country!
Unless you all but replace their program your derivative work is still owned to a large degree by the original authors and they may or may not have granted you rights to alter the license. Even if a bit of their code if left in place you can't change the license on that code.
This is why it's best to keep the license the same even when you make substantial changes to a BSD program! If the original authors pressed it they would likely prevail in court if you changed a BSD license to a GPL on their code - even with a derived work that you own.
Copyright Law is really makes it incompatible for dual licensing and relicensing. This is why you need the original authors permission for a lot of what goes on the fly now. Basically people have been much too loose and free with this for the past few decades. I suspect that we'll start seeing some case law about it soon, maybe even with this case.
True-Free Sofware! BSD! ISC!
Commune-Software: GPL.
BORG-Software: GPL.
Copyright law prevents you from adding to the license!
The ISC and BSD license do not grant you the right to adjust the license.
The simply grant you the right to use the software anyway you like. They don't grant you the right to change the license anyway you want!!! A very important legal distinction.
Copyright Law is VIRAL with respect to derivative works, including those covered by ISC, BSD, Apache, GPL, etc!!!
Including BSD licensed files is fine as long you don't claim to have your license cover those files. As long as they are left alone and are along for the ride you're ok.
You can even make changes to BSD files. As long as those changes don't qualify for a derivative work you can't copyright them WITHIN THE MERGED WORK! You can ship them, but you can't claim copyright because Copyright Law says you don't qualify for a copyright on non-derivative work changes.
If you make significant changes that qualify for a non-derivative work then it gets complicated. In some countries the original authors keep ownership of the derivative works! Countries like say, oh, Germany (where the driver was written)! In other countries like the USA the original authors don't gain copyright in your changes, however, unless you were granted permission to change the license on a derived work you may need to ship it with the same license.
All this has to do with Copyright Law. The Berne Convention also steps in to make things work internationally but also complicates matters significantly by extending the rights of the authors country to other countries. So a German copyright law that is different than in the USA may still have effect in the USA.
Basically the notions that the BSD isn't viral are true, but it's copyright law that exquisitely viral in nature!
The GPL is viral in other ways, so I suppose we'll need a distinction between these two meanings of "viral" so that people don't get confused.
When it is said that Copyright Laws are viral it means that the original authors rights are difficult to get rid of.
the ORIGINAL AUTHOR of the code in question did the relicensing, he was well within his rights to do so.
NO, NO, NO. That file isn't in question!!!
It's the other files that weren't licensed that way that are at issue. You guys really need to find out the facts of this case! Re-read Theo's postings carefully.
Copyright prevents you from altering the license.
By marking this as a troll you are a censor too!
You are also committing an ad hominem personal attack by asserting that this posting was a troll posting.
I most certainly am not a troll and I find it offensive that you'd think so.
If you don't like what I have to say then simply moderate it up and let people go at it and let me defend my statements, otherwise stop with the troll silliness.
No, not necessarily true.
IF YOUR changes are NOT substantial enough to be qualify as a derivative work then your changes WHEN MERGED with the original authors work THEN you effectively don't have any copyright in your changes that are merged!!!
However, if your changes are substantial enough, in volume, or cause a change so that the original work is different enough then you may qualify for a derivative work. However, the BSD license stipulates that you must retain the license terms, meaning that a BSD license takes hold as a precondition of your being allowed to do the work.
The same holds true of an ISC license due to copyright laws that provide the original authors rights in derivative works in countries that have those rights.
In certain countries the original authors may not gain control of your derived copyright however, it's always best to check to see the lineage of the authors in terms of which countries their copyright too effect in.
The best policy is that if you are going to want to change the license of a work that you've created a derived work of it's best to ask the original authors ahead of time before you waste your time changing the code. Permission is better than forgiveness in this case.
That's actually the ISC license, not that it matters all that much as they are almost identical.
GPL is about assimilation of as much code into the commune as they can get their pesky communistic mittens on.
GPL code prevents self-determinism thus it's not free software, it's "commune software".
True Free Software is either BSD/ISC like or Public Domain.
Hi mr. calm down.
The main issues surrounding this have to do with copyright law and what it allows you to grant or not. It's not really a BSD or GPL issue in the general case.
Now, if someone took your new "individual" license and "stole" the code by including it in their license you'd not be too happy about it would you? Yeah, likely you'd be pissed off.
That's what this is about. Theft of copyrighted code. Really the license isn't relevant at that level. BSDers get pissed when it happens. GPLers get really pissed when it happens to them. You'd get pissed when it happens to you.
The bottom line is that while this specific situation is dealing with BSD vs. GPL and someone who stole, or attempted to steal BSD licensed code, and convert it without permission to a GPL license it's a general problem for open source software, true free software and the so called double speak of the GPL/GNU group "free software" (what a travesty their propaganda is).
This is problem even for you who create your own licenses!
Yes, the GPL is highly restrictive and prevents self-determination thus it is not "Free Software"; it's better named "communal software" or "communistic software".
The question is who put the "alternatively" in there. It does matter who. Also the question is which files are you talking about? It does matter which files.
The so called "dual license" file is not the issue IF it was dual licensed by the original author. There is another file (or set of files) that were NOT dual licensed by the original authors that were modified. This is the one in question. Please see Theo's comments for these details.
The BSD license says that the list of conditions must be retained. Copyright Law says that you can't modify the license without permission. No permission is granted to modify or amend the license, thus copyright law prevails and you loose.
So, your double "wrong" is doubly wrong.
The interpretation that any license can be added to a BSD license is incorrect.
First you'd have to pass the test of creating a derivative work under copyright law, and then you'd have to pass the test of asking permission from the original authors.
The BSD/ISC licenses allow you to do what you want with the code, not the license! There is no grant that the original work or derived works can be relicensed, or dual licensed, or have the license modified in anyway. In many countries the original authors always keep copyrights in derived works.
You need to ask permission. I recommend that you get it in writing too, just to be sure and on the safe side.
Naturally I don't have to point out the irony of your signature line, or do I?
If you aren't a lawyer and haven't written any code then STFU. Seriously.
The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
It's funny how you indite yourself with your signature line. Asking someone to "STFU" is an act of censorship, Mr. Censor!!!
So if you don't like what someone has to say you tell them "STFU"? That's the high quality of your debate, Chandon Seldon (43083)?
Sounds like an ad hominem personal attack on your part.
The points are valid regardless if I'm a lawyer or not. Let's just say that they were vetted by a lawyer and careful reading of the wording of the license and copyright laws.
The BSD license terms require that the software, source and binary, MUST BE distributed with the same list of conditions! That means that you CAN NOT modify the conditions if you are not the original authors.
It you want to change the licensing terms YOU MUST seek the original authors permission. YES, even if you make significant changes that qualify your changes as a derivative work.
Copyright Law is quite infective about this.
If you dispute this simply show where there is a grant to add any new license terms? Simply show where there is a grant to bind the software up in the GPL?
GPLers: keep your BORG assimilation nano probes off of BSD code. Change your main license to be friendly with linking to other licensed code.
In this case the facts are that the software files in question where under a BSD license and the changes were not enough to qualify for a derivative work.
... THIS LIST OF CONDITIONS actually means a least two things: one that the list must be kept in the license, and two, that the list of conditions MUST BE RETAINED on the code. That means that they can't be altered in anyway. That also means that attempting to add a GPL or other license isn't permitted.
It's perfectly fine if someone publishes their programs, which happen to include BSD licensed code, under whatever license they want. However, they can't change the terms of the BSD licensed code under any circumstances.
You simply have failed to understand the distinction that the BSD code must remain BSD code for all time. No adding license terms. Nada.
Enjoy using and linking with BSD code. But don't enjoy changing it's license. Thank you.
No clause three doesn't allow someone to release derived works under GPL. SORRY! Let take a look at why shall we.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Ok, so all the following conditions MUST BE MET. With us so far GPL fans?
Here is the next clause:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Ok, the fact that it says MUST RETAIN
* 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.
Ok, same as above.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
This one is clear.
So, it's copyright law and the wording of the BSD (and ISC) license that is infectious and keeps the code and derived works free from repressive licenses like the GPL.
Also, different countries have different copyright laws. However the Berne Software Convention enables another countries software copyright laws to have effect in your country! In Germany the original authors KEEP their right to derived works! Yikes!
OOPS! That means that you'd need their permission to add to or adjust the license terms!
Actually the best policy is to ask the original authors before starting your changes. In this case asking for permission is really way better and less costly in time, money and legal aggravation than seeking forgiveness.
The message is simple. GPLers, stay away from infecting BSD code! Change the GPL so that it's not so damed self centered and arrogant to want to be the BORG and assimilate everything by the "linking policy".
This depends on which files you are talking about in this case. Actually it seems that the so called "dual licensing" of the driver wasn't legally done for the files that are really in dispute! Since appending the GPL to a BSD licensed file itself was a violation of copyright any such GPL license is in violation and is thus the GPL license terms are null and void from having control of those files.
Who'd want a license anyway that prevented me from simply linking source code or binary code licensed under another license? That would be Totalitarian Control (which is what the GPL attempts).
True-Free Software is BSD or even better, Public Domain.
The work to the driver in this case didn't qualify as a derived work under copyright laws since the changes were not significant enough to qualify; thus they can't add a GPL to the license.
Also, it's highly questionable if they could add a GPL licensing terms even to a derived work. Certainly without asking the original authors it's highly questionable indeed since it alters their work notwithstanding what the BSD or ISC license terms say.
Remember you're building upon copyright law granting people rights or not. There are lots of different rights under copyright.
I have to admit I am a little confused. You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
1) You are confused since you are only reading the terms of the licenses and forgetting that they rest upon Copyright Laws of many countries.
2) You are mistaken that it can be closed under a commercial license. The license remains BSD, they just don't have to publish the source code.
3) It is unethical to use the GPL since for a number of reasons outlined very well in Theo's posting. Basically the changes don't qualify for a new copyright and thus it's not a derivative work and thus the authors who made the changes can't add their copyright to another's work.
4) The law is all about technical violations.
5) The sour grapes seem to be with the GPLers who want to assimilate code under the BSD license. No can do.
6) Yes, the spirit of the BSD license and Copyright Law was violated a number of times as Theo described.
7) Your summarization of the BSD license is inaccurate. You must also include all of Copyright Law into your understanding. It's do whatever with the existing license intact or what part of the few paragraphs of the BSD license didn't you understand?
8) Study Copyright Law. Leave BSD software with it's own license. You are still free to use it in your systems as long as you leave the code with it's license, otherwise you'd be well advised to keep your hands off.
9) Forcing people to share their changes back isn't freedom, it's robing them of free choice and self determinism. You are free to use BSD software as long as you adhere to the terms of the license.
Yes, your assessment is correct: Stallman and George Bush do use the same propaganda techniques to obtain control and impose their will upon the people.
Yes, the GPL robs people of the opportunity for self-determinism. When you don't have self-determinism you are not free. Therefor, the GPL doesn't provide freedom. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED).
The way that you clearly expressed your thoughts on this was outstanding! I congratulate you for your insightful and elegant posting. Thank you.