Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

YABGC: Yet Another BSD GPL Comparison 287

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YABGC: Yet Another BSD GPL Comparison More

YABGC: Yet Another BSD GPL Comparison

Comments Filter:

  • LNUX and RHAT sponges (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.

  • Re:Is BSD more free than GPL (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.

    So GPL your contributions, and he'll have to release the source of anything he derives from your work.

  • Paternoster (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • Both are insignificant (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Until there's established legal opinion and precedent concerning the licenses ... of which there is none or very little at present. Nor is there likely to be any.

    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.

  • Foo! (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01, 2000 @06:24AM (#1423818)
    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.
  • 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.

    *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 also disagree with the statement "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price."

    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).

    --

  • The part that says I can't license my code any way I please.

    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.

    --

  • Why was this posted? (Score:5)

    by Brian Knotts ( 855 ) <.moc.sseccaedacsac. .ta. .sttonkb.> on Saturday January 01, 2000 @05:41AM (#1423821)
    There is no content there; just some brief rantings by a license kook. He doesn't even discuss the two licenses' relative merits and shortcomings.

    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
  • 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.
  • I've been a Linux user for over five years, and a *BSD user for around two. I'm glad to see more notice of the various 4.4BSD derivatives coming from the Linux community, but any time those two letters "vs" show up between the names of these two excellent products, it burns my cookies a little bit.

    One of the old linpeople [linpeople.org] 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 [redhat.com] 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.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • YOUR code is STILL on your own drive, or does you always remove all your copies when distributing?
  • 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. :-)
  • Isn't that precisely what the FSF is all about? Altruism?

    Depends on who you are. If you go look at my previous comments, I'm a Stallmanist Kook. However, I see the GPL as a method for ensuring openness in software. *I* don't argue the morality issue anymore, because I've seen it torn to shreds. The GPL and the BSDL use different definitions of "free," and that is really all there is to it. I still use of the GPL by the fact that when everyone plays nice and opens their source, there is no *noticeable* difference between the BSDL and the GPL (pay attention to the emphasis, I didn't say *anything* about them having the same wording/backing philosophies/etc, just the same external *effects*). However, in my paranoid mind, not everyone out in the field wants to play "nice," so in the end, my support of the FSF is about a political agenda, and hell yes that is written all the way through the GPL. Even though it is legally untested, the GPL itself is a statement of those politics, not necessarily anything to do with altruism. In fact, one of the first things I'll explain about open source software is what a boon it is for me as a programmer. Everything is in the interpretation.

    My view is that everything should be open, which of course is open to exceptions where *good* *reason* exists. Haven't seen any reasons for it yet.

    Jeff

  • Greg, coming from the dead opposite side of the fence on liscencing, I have to say that I agree with you. The AC was completely misrepresenting the FSF, because while I don't really believe that pure altruism is possible, the "mine mine mine" attitude is awful.

    In a perfect world, we wouldn't have flame and trolls...

    To our anonymous friend, I am ashamed to see someone who does not understand what he defends. In the name of any cause, one close to my heart, or one which grates against my core beliefs. As an FSF supporter, I am ashamed.

    Jeff

  • There are some who blatantly don't understand, but fight for the cause just to be able to have a fight they call "theirs."

    There are others who aren't blessed with the ability to debate on a deep philosophical level, so while they understand their belief, the debating comes off less than gracefully. I've squared off against one really good debator in real life, and debates depend more on the skill of the people arguing rather than the actual topic. BSDL and GPL are both equally defensible because of the differences in the basic assumptions of the philosophies (english: different definitions of "free"). That's why you'll see perfectly intelligent guys floundering under the grilling of a skilled debator. Go, look, you'll see a couple that happen like this.

    Then there are the good debators, I saw one good post go completely unchallenged on this article that was completely pro-GPL. He only got moderated up to a 2, but that is probably because of the fascist moderators ;)

    I see examples of all three of these groups from the BSD camp too. That idiot AC who can't come up with anything besides "RMS of Borg, you will be assimilated by the GPV!" That's stupid. Just stupid, and no more helpful than the above AC which sparked this thread. I think most of the pro-GPL guys tend to stay out of the fray though, but that's just my observation. Either that, or I really have overestimated our numbers. It also seems to me that the ones who always get their arguments slashed to pieces are the ones who try to defend the morality aspect of the GPL without attacking the BSD definition of "freedom." I see this a *lot*.

    Now that sounded really "us vs. them," which is absolutely not my take on it. Personally, it also looks like now many in the two camps have realized the basic differences in assumptions between the two philosophies and are admitting there's room enough for both, but that is a different tangent altogether.

    And then again, I've been awake for the last 32 hours, so I might be completely full of sh*t.

    Jeff

  • How do we get the most free software? (Score:3)

    by jetson123 ( 13128 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @07:46AM (#1423840)
    The problem with such discussions is that they are often couched in emotional or philosophical terms. But software licenses are primarily tools for getting people to do things. From a free software point of view, I'm particularly interested in encouraging open standards and contributions of new free software.

    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 [tripod.com] 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.

  • 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?

    Denying royalties to who ?

    The original author can release his code under as many different licences as he wants. Or are you protecting the royalties of a third party who sells per-license copies of BSDL code written by somebody else ?

  • My grammar stands corrected.

    Surely denying himself royalties is his own choice?

    So, GPL stops you going comercial/closed sorce with other peoples contributions/patces to your code (without their consent), but also stops other people going commercial/closed source with your code (without your consent).

    BSDL stops neither.

    Many people apparently concider this a worthwhile tradeoff.

  • No I have to strongly disagree...
    Open source is a solution to a problem in public domain...
    With PD no one owns the software... I've writen my share of public domain.. it vanishes and 2 years latter shows up as a comertal product...
    I like the GPL.. Adding a few lines of code to something I wrote gives you no title to my code. I give something to the community to be improved. I don't want to be locked out of those improvements becouse someone else wants title to his part of MY CODE..
    I belive the GPL allows you to keep the changes personal.. If you don't make the binary available you don't have to make anything else available... But if you make your changes available you have to provide the code.. otherwise your basicly in the position of controlling someone elses work.. and thats not freedom.. thats theft...
  • > 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

    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?"

  • How can anyone prove code is being stolen ANYWAY? If the product is closed, there's no way of telling WHAT code went into it. Doubly so if the theif is smart and changes function names to mask obscurely. The fact is that whether you choose GPL or BSD or whatever, if someone wants to steal your code, they will. License be damned. And proving that they stole it would probably cost you more time, money, and energy than writing it initially could have. Fact is, also, if people are going to make money off your product under the GPL or BSD, you aren't going to see it. And that's no matter WHAT license you use. We have two worlds meeting.. and ours doesn't have a capitalistic sense. Mags
  • One could say the same thing about Anonymous Cowards.
  • You really don't know what freedom is, do you? How sad. Let me tell you again what it means: freedom is the absence of restrictions. But wait! if you imprison me, you are restricting me! If you beat me you are restricting me! Get it?
  • "Since you use the Randian catch-phrase "collectivist", I assume you understand what a big fraud the concept of "altruism" is."

    Isn't that precisely what the FSF is all about? Altruism? Remember all that rhetoric about friends and neighbors and how it is morally wrong not to give other peoples' software to them?
  • And there are plenty of worthwile osOpinion articles as well. If it's good enough to lob potshots at osOpinion authors, then it's good enough to lob some at ACs as well.
  • 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?
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • "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.

  • Re:Is BSD more free than GPL (Score:3)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @12:06PM (#1423859) Homepage Journal
    "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.

  • Re:Foo! (Score:3)

    by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @12:25PM (#1423860) Homepage Journal
    "...but keep in mind that by choosing BSD, you could be working for Microsoft for free."

    So what? Are you so arrogant to believe that Microsoft even wants your code? The number of incidents where Microsoft used BSD code can be counted on one hand. Compare that to the myriad BSD packages out there and it's insignificant. And the number of BSD packages which withered away because some "proprietary" Microsoft version existed is exactly ZERO.

    Besides which, all you Anonymous Cowards keep telling me that Free Software is not about "free beer". If it's not, then who cares if Microsoft sells your "beer" for money?
  • Congratulations for being a flaming liar. It is not completely untrue. The GPV destroys any enterprise from profiting using the established fee for copy" licensing model.

    Have you ever read the GPL? It specifically includes the following:

    You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
  • 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.

  • Once other people start contributing code, you have to get their permission to relicense their parts of the program.

    IANAL but I am not so sure that you need to do this - under copyright law the original author also owns derivative works.

  • How much money did Mr Young make off your work?

    Indeed. But what is the comparative? How many BSD authors have had their code turned into money by others without their profitting?

    In fact I thought that the argument proposed in the article for discussion was that you cannot make money from GPL software. Mr. Young seems to have made quite a lot of money from such software. Does this perhaps call into question the validity of the argument that you cannot make money from GPL software?

    In addition, RedHat has funded the development of quite a bit of software that has been returned to the community under GPL. If RedHat had chosen the BSD licensed software they might have earned just as much money, and NOT returned anything in terms of code to the community with a free conscience. Organizations like SuSE, Corel, Mandrake and so on are following the same model. This model is generating quite a bit of new software under the GPL, as well as contributions to non-GPL software.

    If commercial BSD suppliers had made such contributions, might BSD have benefited?


  • Ignorant Rant - Waste of Time (Score:3)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @06:34AM (#1423866)
    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
  • 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.
    Thank you. That sums it up as well as I can imagine right now.

    We could all do well to remember this as a general principle when talking about licensing.

    Greg
  • 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
  • THIS is insightful? Ouch.

    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.

    Oh, how I wish I had moderator points right now. And for this to turn up in my meta moderation.

    Speaking of which, a thought. I've complained about the quality of moderation before and while there are blatant problems (like this) around, the main problem is that there are plenty of viewpoints out there which care perfectly valid and supportable but never get moderated. So, they never show up in meta moderation for comment.

    Why not expand meta moderation so that we did a standard moderation on 10 comments, but that only went into a moderation database? The extent to which moderators were agreed with could be tracked more easily, but unmoderated comments could be included without it being a problem.

    Greg

  • Re:OSOpinion - news for morons, by morons (Score:3)

    by GregWebb ( 26123 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @01:30PM (#1423872)
    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

  • Re:Double Standards (Score:3)

    by GregWebb ( 26123 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @01:49PM (#1423873)
    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

  • Is BSD more free than GPL (Score:4)

    by Rupert ( 28001 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @06:26AM (#1423874) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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.
  • If you're the same anonymous coward throwing around "GPV" in practically every other thread under this story, you really need to get your thoughts better organized. Do you want authors to give away their code unencumbered by a license, or do you want them to receive monetary compensation?

    Since you use the Randian catch-phrase "collectivist", I assume you understand what a big fraud the concept of "altruism" is. So why do have the gall to criticize people want something in return for the value they create? Some people want money for their code, and others want access to the code build upon it.

    The GPL ensures that everybody gets a dacha, whether the party likes it or not. Under BSDL, theres no guarantee you'll even get bread.

  • Bar! (Score:4)

    by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @08:58AM (#1423877) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • And since it is under GPL, I can take JasonCC, make changes if desired (source must be supplied or available), slap my own copyright on top, and market it as FleeceCC.
    Or I, or anyone you or I sell to, can take and modify source, use it, and release nothing.
    With GPL'd code, anyone who has it has all the rights to the code as the original copyright holder, except the right to modify, sell, and exclude any of the rights they had originally.
  • You can define symbiosis as _mutual_ parasitism.
    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) /. readers and such.
    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.
  • That is why I usually read the commentary and ignore the article. If there is any content, someone will gleefully comment on it.
    As for Flamebait, see the post following yours. If the whole thing is one giant Troll, it seems to have caught a few good one. As for style, IMHO it seems better to link to something that is not _too_ old than to just start it bare. Your post is a good example of why Anonymous Coward postings are a good idea.
  • 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.

  • All licences are infectious. The GPL is merely one of the few that actually allows it to happen in the open.

    Other-free code doesnt become less 'infected' because its merged with Win 95 sources and subjected to Win 95 license agreements than Other-free code merged with GPL-free code.

    The correct terminology would be to call licenses that allow 'infection' to happen 'immunologicaly deficient licenses', such as the BSD license.
  • His changes are still his work after he is done. He retains the copyright. If he wants to distribute his code together with the original GPL code he may, if he licenses his code under the GPL, or a more free license that will still fulfill the terms of the GPL (for example, BSD). The total combined work must remain within the terms of the GPL, but the parts can be under any license that allows those terms.

    BUT. If he wants to distribute his work as proprietary, the rights of the _original_ GPL work does not allow distribution of _that_ work in a proprietary form. He can distribute his own code all he wants, but his changes doesnt make the original his, and if he cannot abide by those terms then he cannot distribute those parts.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Okay, so the GPL is basically the same concept as communism. On paper, communism can work, but in a real world situation it eventually leads to corruption in government. This does not mean that it can not work for software.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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."
  • 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.
    The default should be Standard C, not Stallman C. You should have to take special steps to get the non-standard (deftly avoiding sub-standard and super-standard) behaviour. Don't make the default non-portable. This is embrace and extend.

    Also: it's really quite reasonable to expect code to build under a different compiler than the original one that you built the program for.

    From my experience all C compilers want to lock you down to one platform or another.
    That problem, clearly severe, is why we have specs and standards to which conformance can be measured. If a compiler for a standarized language locks you in to that compiler rather than to a standard, then this is a major snafu. Standard C should be source-compatible. It doesn't matter whose compiler you use.

    Or at least, it shouldn't.

  • 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.
  • translation: the author didn't use the sophisticated sorts of arguments that we GPL'ers like.

    it's true--this guy is certainly not steeped in the BSD-GPL debate, or else he would have taken care to at least try to make a much more precise argument. _still_, you don't have to make the sort of complicated analysis that /.ers like to make in order to come to an honest and reasonable conclusion as this guy has.

    nevermind, the real GPL-BSD debate won't be decided in slashdot threads. it will be decided by people who have good and bad experiences with GPL and with BSD. right now GPL has an advantage because linux is more popular than BSD, and because torvalds has chosen GPL. but the sort of license that we choose is a question that will remain longer than any one program and any one guy.


  • what is it? a rant? you call this a rant? do you call it a rant because you don't know any other nouns to use to describe something you don't agree with? you are so silly.

  • The Temporary Propietary License (Score:3)

    by tytso ( 63275 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @07:17AM (#1423899) Homepage

    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" [mit.edu]. 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.

    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 ... that restricts me.

    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.
  • Did you really quote me before saying all that? Yes, you did. Lets see it again for the first time:

    "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."

    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.
  • Yeah really. He failed to mention that not all software is written to directly make profit. There are many, many industries where collaboration in developing software will not hurt the bottom line or increase competition due to open business practices.
  • Beating and raping means infringing on someone elses rights. Licenses such as the BSD license ensure that which comes from each developer belongs to them. There are a number of converse metaphorical arguments that I could present to nullify your story. I won't because they are inherently flawed. Imagery is flawed in that can only explain simple situations.

    When will people learn. Choosing a license is purely situational. YOU choose what YOU want. If you want to restrict how people use your license, do so. If you want to BSD, GPL, Artistic License, proprietorize or partially open -- do whatever the hell you want. It's your code.

    Since I need to leave on a ski trip now, I won't think up a bunch of situational examples providing good uses for each and every license there is. The reason why so many exist is because there is no perfect or right license.

    Please, just don't be a tool for someone elses agenda. Make sure that agenda meets your own first..
  • 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.

    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? :) 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.

    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 ;).

  • Re:BSD versus GPL... yet again. (Score:3)

    by dennisp ( 66527 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @06:18AM (#1423905)
    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.

  • New Slashdot section: License Flaming (Score:5)

    by agshekeloh ( 67349 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @06:01AM (#1423906) Homepage

    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.

  • The "infectious" aspect is the one main reason why you get to have a free copy of Linux plus countless support files and utilities, complete with the all-important source code. Complaining about the GPL is like saying "Life is great, everything is wonderful, but occasionally the bright sun hurts my eyes, I sure wish it would go away."

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • I see that Stallman's beard offends you. I take it you would be happier if Stallman were to shave. I don't suppose he will, and I can't imagine why you'd care. I'm glad you can't see me, for if I had a beard perhaps it too would offend you, which heaven forbid. Also, by your slashdot user name I take it you don't approve of the GPL. Fortunately for you no one forces you to release any all-original code you've written under the GPL.

    What I'm wondering is, as you don't approve of the Gnu Public License, how do you feel about more ordinary proprietary software licenses, such as the End User License Agreement on this copy of NT Workstation 4.0 I have on my bookshelf? You know, just as there are certain legal restrictions on the use of software, such as EMACS or the Linux kernel, whose creators released it under the GPL, similarly the MS EULA restricts the use of software which Microsoft created and distributed. Do you have similar reservations about that? Do you refer to the MS EULA as "viral"? Certainly it "infects" the product; if I transfer ownership of my copy of NT to you, you too must abide by the terms of the MS EULA. Is there any particular reason you prefer the MS EULA to the GPL, which would explain you not choosing the user name "EULAs-not-good"?

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

  • 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.
  • I can see this as a really good idea - but the problem is the number of packages that have been developed (under GPL, with BSD the need to make a license change isn't a problem) by so many developers that no one has a clear title to the code to make the needed license changes to allow something like this. So only new, clean-roomprojects (or ones that aren't GPL'ed, or that require patch copyrights to be turned over to the 'main author' could benefit. Probably still worth pursuing

  • proposed addendum to the GPL:

    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.

  • the BSD-license keeps software only free in copyright-terms, it doesn't mention software-patents at all. it would still be possible to charge a license-fee for every single copy of f.e. freeBSD in case somebody finds it violates a patent.

    this is not possible with linux, as paragraph #7 of the GPL [fsf.org] prohibits distribution of the software in this case.

    another license which is more free in the patents issue is the MPL/NPL [mozilla.org]. 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 [opensource.org] 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 [fsf.org] 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!

  • BSD versus GPL... yet again. (Score:3)

    by Eythain ( 120617 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @06:04AM (#1423919)
    I just plain don't like the BSD licence. Not that I have anything against it in and of itself, that would be plain silly for anyone who believes in the freedom to do what you want with your own stuff. But I do have something against the claim that the BSD licence is better or more free than (usually) the GPL.

    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.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close