This is nothing new. Provide a permissive license and expecting everything to be returned to you is contradictory to the very license you've chose. Forking happens all the time, usually around licensing or management issues. So aside from the little dust storm we've seen recently regarding the wifi driver and the copyright clause I don't see how this is news.
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened. Kind of making this a none story.
Is it nice to give back under the BSD? Sure! But not doing so is not rude. They could have used the GPL if wanted it to be given back under the same license. Instead by using BSD they explicitly give you the legal right and moral OK to not give back.
Erasing the copyright info is definitely illegal. No arguments there.
Instead by using BSD they explicitly give you the legal right and moral OK to not give back.
No, just the legal right. Unlike the GPL, the BSD license does not attempt to dictate morals. It's up to the morals of the users to do with as they please. Now we see what the morals really are of the FSF in that they're eager to take and not share back when they get the opportunity.
Just because you don't have the legal obligation under pain of lawsuit not to contribute back does not mean that it's okay to snub the original author. When I share I am not demanding that you share back. It doesn't matter if it's code, time or sandwiches, I am not imposing any obligation on you. But that does not absolve you of the morality of sharing. You should be sharing back simply because you should be sharing.
if the author cared about sharing he could have used the GPL. i have no remorse for people releasing under BSD that throw a fit when people actually distribute (or don't) under terms of the license. i say this as someone who releases most of his code under the zlib or bsd licences.
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author.
It is not rude if the original author explicitly gave you permission to do it. And that's exactly what the BSD license is -- explicit permission to deny any derivative works to the original author.
Second, it's ilelgal. You may not file off someone's license just because you disagree with it.
Hey Don Quixote, nice strawman. Nobody here is 'filing off someone's license' they are strictly obeying the terms and conditions of the license.
One thing we're going to get into trouble with here is everyone arguing two different things, though Theo didn't help in his letter. 1. Are you allowed to remove the BSD license from a file, even if you add onto it. 2. Which license is better, BSD or GPL.
To the first question, I say the answer is no. I read the BSD license at the OSI and it says do not remove the copyright notice or the license. This is what started this, and the license needs to remain in the file, no matter what additional licenses are
You're dead wrong about it being "rude" to "deny" derivative work to the original author. That's the whole fucking point of BSD, isn't it? That granting access to ANYONE of the derivative works is not required. This is usually the main (only?) point put forward when arguing that BSD is "more Free" than GPL. People using the GPL to create derivative works owe nothing legally or ethically to the BSD originators that close sourced developers using the same BSD code do not, and to suggest otherwise just bec
Actually, I don't think that's the issue. He must've realised that can happen to BSD-licensed code a long time ago. So the problem is another one. There's an unspoken agreement in place for kernel drivers. The BSD camp brings their code, the Linux camp brings their code, they work together and then both camps get to take the common result home. Under their own respective licenses! In order to achieve this they dual-licensed the code they put together. But now the GPL camp is breaking the agreement and puttin
You're dead wrong about it being "rude" to "deny" derivative work to the original author. That's the whole fucking point of BSD, isn't it? That granting access to ANYONE of the derivative works is not required.
Saying thank you is not required but not doing so is rude. It's not a terribly difficult concept.
You know, I was considering using a BSD license for a project until yesterday when I read Theo's latest rant and the reaction from BSD-zealots like you. Now I'm using GPL 3.0. Just thought you should know that all the trash-talking, threatening and lying is not making you guys more popular. HAND
Oh, I'm not saying it's applicable in this case. Just brainstorming.
Maybe a license that says "Binaries can be distributed under any terms you choose, but if the source code is released, it must be under this license..."
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author.
So Mr Apple-Tree [slashdot.org] has an epiphany. That's right, the 'apples' are still free but people care about the derivatives. You're getting there.
It's like taking the free apples from the apple tree, making a bunch of apple pies, and specifically not inviting the owner of the apple tree to the feast.
Maybe the BSD license should be altered to say code can be closed-sourced but not open-sourced without retaining the original BSD license(adding an additional license to the code would probably be fine). Seems like BSD's intent is to allow code to be used anywhere(including closed-source) without the viral effect, and its understandable that taking the code, modifying it, and applying a viral license to it would anger some developers
Seems like BSD's intent is to allow code to be used anywhere(including closed-source) without the viral effect, and its understandable that taking the code, modifying it, and applying a viral license to it would anger some developers
The GPL may be "viral", but it is misleading to suggest that closed source is not. If someone modifies and closes my source, how can I make use of those changes? I can't. In fact, I can't even see them. How is that worse than if someone released it under the GPL?
Would kind of kill the point. This is *at worse* a forking issue. One codebase is BSD. Will always be. Can always be. The other is licensed in a way requiring it be open. You now (regardless of what happens) have two code bases. If you don't like the terms of the extended GPL'd code (which is fine not to) you ignore it. Continue work. Hell, at least you can see what they've done. If the code were to be wrapped into a Redmond product you'd get less. This is a silly dispute. Viral implies that it takes over.
Can you explain how forking from BSD to GPL works? Because the diff showed what appeared to be relicensing, and removed a clause that purported to be unremovable. So how does one take a BSD work and re-release it under GPL without violating the BSD?
I know that it's possible, by design; I'm just getting really confused as to how it works.
The correct way of doing this is to include the BSD code in a larger GPL'd work. If you wrote, for example, a Linux kernel module, based on BSD code, you could keep the code under a BSD license. The combined work of kernel and module, however, would be GPL'd. If the module incorporated any code from Linux other than public interface (not subject to copyright), then the module would also become GPL'd on its own, although individual files might retain their BSD license.
The point is that we have the GPL camp and we have the BSD camp. The GPL camp takes code from the BSD camp and the BSD camp is not able to merge those changes back into BSD code. The issue here is not that this is a license violation; it is not. BSD people, like me, want other people to use our code. The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code. Again, I emphasize that this action is not a problem to us; we want it and we expect it. The problem is with the GPL camp saying how they are somehow "more free".
The GPL camp takes code from the BSD camp and the BSD camp is not able to merge those changes back into BSD code.
And that's the inherant problem with the BSD license, people can mod your code and not give it back to you.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, but you just have to adhere to the GPL license for those changes. The hyprocisy is the BSD camp saying "be free to use our code any way you want" and when people take them up on the offer, they complain.
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..." So, you
> There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'd, > but you just have to adhere to the GPL
Exactly! But because I can not adhere to the GPL, I can not use those changes. You are simply engaging in pointless wordplay here. It's like giving me a "choice" of giving you a million dollars or dying. It really isn't a choice at all if I have to do as you tell me.
> Really now, why should you care what someone says? > What's the big deal? Get a grip, son.
The big deal is that people listen to those GPL fanatics saying how their code is more "free" and then go and release their projects under the GPL without understanding all the issues. When people are duped into going to the GPL camp, the BSD camp fails to gain code that we could have used. Since one of the reasons for having free software is to be able to build on other people's work, this really is a big deal.
BSD people, like me, want other people to use our code.
Except if they release under the GPL, it seems.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
They can use their code - they just can't release it under BSD. I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't w
> They can use their code - they just can't release it under BSD.
That's the point.
> I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released > under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't want their code released under GPL?
Like I already said, we are not moaning that we don't want our code released under GPL. We are simply pointing out that by locking us out (and you are locking us out because we can't incorporate GPL code into ours without changing to GPL, which I wi
We are simply pointing out that by locking us out (and you are locking us out because we can't incorporate GPL code into ours without changing to GPL, which I will do over my DEAD BODY), you are no different from proprietary software companies.
In this respect, correct. What's the problem? If you don't want people doing this with your code, then you shouldn't be releasing it under BSD. The whole point about BSD is it gives freedom for other people to do what they like, including releasing derivative works u
I've never seen this happen. Almost everyone I know in the GPL camp acknowledges that the BSD license is more free than the GPL license. They believe, however, that loss of some freedoms is necessary to ensure others. They would argue that allowing their changes back into the BSD code would actually result in less freedom because it would allow others to make changes to their code proprietary and they don't wish to assist proprietary efforts. I am personally a BSD person. I like the BSD license much more tha
I have been around GPL an BSDL projects for a long time. I dont care about license wars but I will say this-- any community is capable of defending itself if it is strong. IANAL, and in cases like this it is probably a good idea to have legal advice. In BSDL projects, you have no legal recourses, but you do have economic ones such as: 1) Create similar changes embodying the same ideas but implemented using different code. Clean-room the changes if necessary. If they don't want to give you the changes, yo
How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project? The only difference here is that the BSD camp seems to see GPL'd modification as some kind of bait-and-hook. But the GPL camp is giving back. Their just not doing it in a way that suits *you*. Ironically it would be much less an issue if they simple took the code and where never seen or heard from again. Instead they share the changes, all be it these changes are under the terms of a different license. You sti
> How is this different from someone taking your BSD code and wrapping it into a commercial project?
Precisely! There is no difference. My point was exactly that the GPL camp says how bad BSD license is because it allows people to take your code and lock it in such a way that you won't be able to use it any more, which they interpret as "losing your code", and "immoral", and "not giving back". Well, here we have the GPL camp doing exactly the same thing to us BSD people and all of a sudden it's ok. This i
How is this different from a commercial company who takes GPL code, makes a commercial product with it, and then charges you a million dollars and requires you to sign an NDA for the privilege of getting the code? See, you can get the code! See, they are giving back! It just isn't in a way that suits *you*, isn't it? And if this happened, Stallman would cry bloody murder. And don't bring up that the above scenario violates the GPL; yes, it does, but that's not the point. The point here is political, not a l
> So getting upset because something wasn't given back seems very contradictory to your own license.
Man, can't you read? I keep repeating it, but it just doesn't get through: 1) We are not upset because something wasn't given back. We don't expect it. 2) We are upset because it wasn't given back by the GPL people. Specificially. Not because they took it and didn't give back, but because they say that this action (taking and not giving back) is precisely the reason why everyone ought to favor GPL over BSD.
But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. The GPL isn't a nice license. It's an open license. People seem to get that mixed up. We say the code can be open. We also say that the code must REMAIN open. We watch for violations and we enforce this license. So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code. We aren't saying: hey, I've done this work and you can extend it and use it however y
> But the key difference is if you swapped scenarios regarding the BSD/GPL > issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL. Yes, but that is not the key issue. It isn't even an issue at all. The issue is with the action: when you force someone to use the GPL for the code they wrote, you are dictating terms on their code, which is why we hate you.
> So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code.
Evil. That would be an interesting turn. It's an ideological difference. But you keep coming back to the making the code unavailable, which if it were true I would think would be quite terrible. In fact totally unreasonable. But the code that is adopted by the GPL programmers is never TAKEN from you. It's the extended, more specifically, the extensions that are out of reach. So you're getting upset about code that didn't exist separate from the GPL. Worse, we're going back and forth after you've already sho
The problem is with the GPL camp saying how they are somehow "more free".
This requires an answer to "Who's more free?"
IIRC, the GPL came about when Stallman used a piece of software, liked it, but found a bug. He could not fix the bug, the developer for whatever reason would not modify the software to remove the bug. This lead to his vision of giving users the freedom to change the behavior of the software they use. This is where the new clauses in the GPLv3, they are additions to ensure users can modi
The way I see it, it takes nearly no effort at all to contribute the changes back to the BSD camp that provided you with the base for the code. All else being equal, that seems to be the ethical thing to do.
It takes more effort to change the licensing in such a way that the BSD camp can't use the code. So it's kind of a slap in the face. I think that's where the animosity comes from, especially since the GPL camp proclaims to be all about freedom and sharing.
You can see the changes? Because I could very well take the same code and wrap it into a proprietary package. Maybe make a fortune as I extend the code. But as we all know that's the beauty of the BSD type license: freedom. So the GPL coders take the same code, extend it to suit their needs and offer it to everyone. Only under a license they believe in. And you feel slighted.
For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL and BSD type licenses coexist perfectly, so long as both parties take the time to understand each other. Which is mostly the way it's happened. Kind of making this a none story.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it nice to give back under the BSD? Sure! But not doing so is not rude. They could have used the GPL if wanted it to be given back under the same license. Instead by using BSD they explicitly give you the legal right and moral OK to not give back.
Erasing the copyright info is definitely illegal. No arguments there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just the legal right. Unlike the GPL, the BSD license does not attempt to dictate morals. It's up to the morals of the users to do with as they please. Now we see what the morals really are of the FSF in that they're eager to take and not share back when they get the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't have the legal obligation under pain of lawsuit not to contribute back does not mean that it's okay to snub the original author. When I share I am not demanding that you share back. It doesn't matter if it's code, time or sandwiches, I am not imposing any obligation on you. But that does not absolve you of the morality of sharing. You should be sharing back simply because you should be sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely possible to encourage people to share without holding a lawsuit-laden license to their head.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's rude. You don't deny a derivative work to the original author.
It is not rude if the original author explicitly gave you permission to do it. And that's exactly what the BSD license is -- explicit permission to deny any derivative works to the original author.
Second, it's ilelgal. You may not file off someone's license just because you disagree with it.
Hey Don Quixote, nice strawman. Nobody here is 'filing off someone's license' they are strictly obeying the terms and conditions of the license.
Re: (Score:1)
1. Are you allowed to remove the BSD license from a file, even if you add onto it.
2. Which license is better, BSD or GPL.
To the first question, I say the answer is no. I read the BSD license at the OSI and it says do not remove the copyright notice or the license. This is what started this, and the license needs to remain in the file, no matter what additional licenses are
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to achieve this they dual-licensed the code they put together. But now the GPL camp is breaking the agreement and puttin
Re: (Score:2)
Saying thank you is not required but not doing so is rude. It's not a terribly difficult concept.
Re: (Score:2)
How can this possibly be insightful?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Just thought you should know that all the trash-talking, threatening and lying is not making you guys more popular.
HAND
Re: (Score:2)
Dual-Licensed BSD and GPL, *INCLUSIVE* instead of alternate, so that the rights passed on under the GPL include the rights under the BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a license that says "Binaries can be distributed under any terms you choose, but if the source code is released, it must be under this license..."
Re: (Score:1)
So Mr Apple-Tree [slashdot.org] has an epiphany. That's right, the 'apples' are still free but people care about the derivatives. You're getting there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The GPL may be "viral", but it is misleading to suggest that closed source is not. If someone modifies and closes my source, how can I make use of those changes? I can't. In fact, I can't even see them. How is that worse than if someone released it under the GPL?
The point is you
Nope... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that it's possible, by design; I'm just getting really confused as to how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
For drivers, I'd have thought the L
This is not the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And that's the inherant problem with the BSD license, people can mod your code and not give it back to you.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
There's no hypocrisy in that. Anyone can use the changes that where GPL'
Ball of confusion (Score:3, Interesting)
You guys are confused. BSD code does make it into proprietary products, but you do not get to omit the fact that there's BSD code in it. We see it all the time: "Copyright The Regents of the University of California (etc.)..."
So, you
Re: (Score:2)
> but you just have to adhere to the GPL
Exactly! But because I can not adhere to the GPL, I can not use those changes. You are simply engaging in pointless wordplay here. It's like giving me a "choice" of giving you a million dollars or dying. It really isn't a choice at all if I have to do as you tell me.
Re: (Score:2)
> What's the big deal? Get a grip, son.
The big deal is that people listen to those GPL fanatics saying how their code is more "free" and then go and release their projects under the GPL without understanding all the issues. When people are duped into going to the GPL camp, the BSD camp fails to gain code that we could have used. Since one of the reasons for having free software is to be able to build on other people's work, this really is a big deal.
Re: (Score:1)
Except if they release under the GPL, it seems.
The complaint here is about the hypocrisy of the GPL camp, who claim that they don't want anyone to use their code without giving back the changes, but then turn around and do just that to the BSD people's code.
They can use their code - they just can't release it under BSD. I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't w
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point.
> I don't get it - if the GPL is bad for making it so that code can't be released
> under BSD, why are BSD people moaning that they don't want their code released under GPL?
Like I already said, we are not moaning that we don't want our code released under GPL. We are simply pointing out that by locking us out (and you are locking us out because we can't incorporate GPL code into ours without changing to GPL, which I wi
Re: (Score:1)
In this respect, correct. What's the problem? If you don't want people doing this with your code, then you shouldn't be releasing it under BSD. The whole point about BSD is it gives freedom for other people to do what they like, including releasing derivative works u
Re: (Score:1)
I am personally a BSD person. I like the BSD license much more tha
So, fight back! (Score:2)
In BSDL projects, you have no legal recourses, but you do have economic ones such as:
1) Create similar changes embodying the same ideas but implemented using different code. Clean-room the changes if necessary. If they don't want to give you the changes, yo
Still missing the point... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely! There is no difference. My point was exactly that the GPL camp says how bad BSD license is because it allows people to take your code and lock it in such a way that you won't be able to use it any more, which they interpret as "losing your code", and "immoral", and "not giving back". Well, here we have the GPL camp doing exactly the same thing to us BSD people and all of a sudden it's ok. This i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, can't you read? I keep repeating it, but it just doesn't get through:
1) We are not upset because something wasn't given back. We don't expect it.
2) We are upset because it wasn't given back by the GPL people. Specificially. Not because they took it and didn't give back, but because they say that this action (taking and not giving back) is precisely the reason why everyone ought to favor GPL over BSD.
Obviously we could go back and forth.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> issue you'd be in violation of the terms of the GPL.
Yes, but that is not the key issue. It isn't even an issue at all. The issue is with the action: when you force someone to use the GPL for the code they wrote, you are dictating terms on their code, which is why we hate you.
> So while it isn't exactly possible to steal BSD code it *is* possible to steal GPL code.
Legally true, but not morally true.
> No GPL developer has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This requires an answer to "Who's more free?"
IIRC, the GPL came about when Stallman used a piece of software, liked it, but found a bug. He could not fix the bug, the developer for whatever reason would not modify the software to remove the bug. This lead to his vision of giving users the freedom to change the behavior of the software they use. This is where the new clauses in the GPLv3, they are additions to ensure users can modi
Re:For fucks sake, it's forking... (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes more effort to change the licensing in such a way that the BSD camp can't use the code. So it's kind of a slap in the face. I think that's where the animosity comes from, especially since the GPL camp proclaims to be all about freedom and sharing.
And it's a slap in the face because... (Score:2)