BSD is a way of giving up control on your code. Why would anyone trust code on people who cannot even keep on to their own? It is like lending money to a man who then throws it all across the street. If i wanted to throw money all around, i would do it myself. Actually, i would support BSD in a world where there is only GPL and BSD licensed code. But until that world comes, BSD just hinders freedom.
I've read Theo's rant, and I found the section about not sharing code back to be pretty humorous, considering that's the way the BSD license is written. If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?
I personally prefer the GPL, but I've been around Slashdot for a few years and understand the "more freedom" argument from BSD fans. That "more freedom" is the freedom to relicense or even completely close up the code, returning nothing to the original project.
Why's everyone got their panties in a bunch over something which the license allows? (I also understand the origin of this anger being the removal of the attribution and BSD text from the wireless kernel patch proposed, but it was just proposed, not accepted, and the situation was immediately resolved.)
Personally I don't think either one is more free than the other. I think it comes down to the GPL keeping code free and the BSD license keeping people free.
That's kind of what I was trying to get at. The freedom that the BSD folks talk about is the freedom to do virtually anything you want with the code. I find it ironic that there are complaints about code not being shared back in this case.
It's not much different from back when Transgaming first started with Cedega. There were protests from the Wine guys that the code had been taken and nothing was returned. The rational members in the debate were saying "Then why license the code the way you did?" Wine sw
Actually, the true irony is that the GPL was created because they were tired of companies closing their source so they couldn't use it anymore. Now their license is preventing others (the author included if they succeed) from using that same code. Effectively the GPL is locking people out of the code.
When I read the original OpenBSD thread, the author of the driver (originally dual-licensed BSD/GPL) was the one who submitted the GPLed driver to the Linux kernel, so he's not denying himself anything. Additionally, the original BSDed code is still available for anyone to take. No one squirreled that code away. The fork of the BSD/GPL code to a GPL project didn't lock anyone out.
Sure, improvements on the GPL side won't be BSD licensed, but any proprietary company which takes it won't contribute back, eit
Theo is right on this one. His argument is: When a BSD/GPL code is passed along, it will be forever dual-licensed because the GPL guarantees it:
"if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
The key words being "all the rights". Including the rights that you get by way of the BSD
The code in question had the BSD license included, plus the author (copyright holder) added a condition saying that "alternatively," the GPL could be used.
One is therefore free to select the alternate license and ignore the BSD license, and that includes the part about keeping it around.
Now, and this is key, the author has every right to put in something which says "chose either for yourself, but keep both in what you pass on." He didn't, and the only requirement to keep the BSD lic
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
I think your correct that there is no obligation to maintain BSD code rights, however there is a choice to be made.
The principle behind the GPL is no author gets locked out of their own code and changes made to it. By not maintaining BSD rights your doing that to the authors of the BSD Code. However by maintaining the BSD rights your allowing yourself to be locked out of changes to your code.
So which principle will you go for? Sharing the common code under both licenses seems to be the principled stance fo
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
Now, _that_ is a weak argument IMHO, but it could fly nonetheless. My opinion is still: before doing the choosing between BSD and GPL rights to excercise, you had BOTH. So, you are still obligated to pass both along. I know that if _I_ ever come to the position where I must exercise the choosing and those rights, I would explicitly pass both rights along because it was the desire of the original author of something that I derived my work from and that should be enough for me. Now, if _I_ am the sole author
"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL. Now "conform" takes the meaning of "taking the shape of" the GPL. However, because the code is licensed to you by the author, who retains the copyright, you don't get to strip the BSD license. Theo was very explicit about this, citing copyright law. I'll even bet that his argument, made in a public mailing list, can be used in court.
Now, what would be the purpose of having a BSD+GPL license? Here's one possibility: because
You and Theo are disingenuous idiots. First, you make an unsubstantiated claim - '"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL.', then you redefine a term you just pulled from your ass to mean what you want it to mean ("conform"). That's as dishonest as an argument can possibly be. "Alternately" means exactly what it says, it offers an alternative ("The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternative [thefreedictionary.com] ) What Theo has
I don't think the author is wrong. I only think that if this is what he wants, he should be more explicit next time. I think what author _says_ he wants (when he dual-licenses his code GPL/BSD) is not what he really wants given the last statement you linked to. One important notice: I happen to disagree with TdR most of the time. But his argument -- even if we are wrong -- deserves to be pondered upon.
I wouldn't say it's exactly ironic. Just because the GPL was created as a solution to a problem doesn't make the problem magically go away. Fire was invented a long time ago and yet people can still get cold, right?
Personally I don't think either one is more free than the other. I think it comes down to the GPL keeping code free and the BSD license keeping people free.
Wrong. BSD gives all the freedom possible to first-level users/developers of the software. GPL doesn't. It takes some of that freedom away (the freedom to restrict other users/developers) in order to ensure more people get the resulting limited freedom.
I think it's more exact to say that BSD is a lot of freedom for less people, while the GPL means somewhat less freedom to a lot of people.
I've read Theo's rant, and I found the section about not sharing code back to be pretty humorous, considering that's the way the BSD license is written. If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?
Say I just don't like the GPL. Say I don't like the idea of giving a legal ultimatum about how they can use my code--the code that I wrote and want to share. Say I want Microsoft to be able to use it in an operating system, Real to be able to use it in an audio player, etc.
It is still good manners for people that make improvements in my code to send me changes. I helped them, and good people return favors when they can. So why didn't I use the LGPL? Well, that license is just a bit more of a pain, and I
Telling me I can do something and then rebuking me for doing it is kind of a shitty practice, isn't it? If you want me to share code with you, put it in the license. Microsoft and Real won't contribute back, either.
Telling me I can do something and then rebuking me for doing it is kind of a shitty practice, isn't it?
I'm a little more of a libertarian than most, but I believe people should have rights to do some things that I, personally, believe are wrong. If I'm the only person that can give those rights, I'll do so.
Microsoft and Real won't contribute back, either.
Said Theo de Raadt on the Linux kernel mailing list (yesterday?): When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK.
So, perhaps not Microsoft and Real, but maybe more than you would expect.
So its okay for some companies not to do it (e.g. Microsoft) but not okay for other companies (e.g. Red Hat)? Seems like this guy just hates the GPL and is using a situation HE allowed to happen to spread fud about it.
GPL people are willing to help those who also want to spread the same freedoms down the road, rather then say a closed source company like Microsoft. By porting code to a BSD license they may be helping a closed source company (e.g. Microsoft) within the week. That's something GPL people would prefer not to do.
Telling me I can do something and then rebuking me for doing it is kind of a shitty practice, isn't it?
No, not really. It's a way to reconcile moral views and freedom: give people the right to do something you disagree with, while retaining the right to disagree with them if they take advantage of that right.
For example, I believe people should have the right to troll on Slashdot, because I believe that's the only way to ensure that people who genuinely hold controversial views feel able to argue their case. Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to mod trolls down? If so, why?
If you want me to share code with you, put it in the license.
No, that's for if you want to demand that code be shared. If you would like code to be shared, and intend to complain if it isn't when it reasonably could be, but absolutely do not want to take away the licensee's freedom to decide for themselves whether to share or not, then you should not add anything to the license. It would probably be appropriate to mention your attitude in the README, though.
(One very good reason not to put this kind of stuff in the license is that the GP apparently was specifically interested in allowing large companies to use his code. Large companies hate custom licenses. Stick with something standard if you want the commercial world to even bother looking at your code.)
Mod parent up, we have licenses, which are legal documents, and seem to be written like contracts, exactly so people who try to reuse code know what "can" happen. Which allows them to do things in an aware manner(either not use the code, re-use the code but not distribute, distribute, re-license, etc...) "Rebuke" in a legal context only really makes sense when the receiver should have known he was in the wrong, in the first place. The license ie expected to be explicit, to keep the number of rebukes low, o
According to the dictionary, "Free" means not controlled by the obligation or will of others or not subject to external restraint. That sounds like BSD.
Through the use of the GPL, the FSF redefines "Free" by imposing various restrictions (if you use this code, then you must...). How is that "Free"?
And before you flame me for being anti-GPL, I have released a lot of work under GPL. I think the GPL is very beneficial, but that does not mean I have to drink the kool-aid.
Stated that absolutely, it's easy to disprove your point: GPL gives the user freedom to access, use and modify the source code of a program they use. Giving one freedom to one group of people often means taking away another freedom from some other group. But there's a related underlying point, which is that the FSF and its fans often seem to deliberately conflate the above context-sensitive meaning of "free" with a more general meaning that's more familiar to more people. It's a PR game as tricky as any Mi
"Giving freedom" and taking it away from others does not sound quite right.
I think the whole point of enforcing freedom only leads to bad things. History shows that. Enforcing freedom is an oxymoron. If you enforce freedom it's not quite that free, is it?
Why is it then that Saddam had to be forcibly evicted? Are the wetern freedoms merely illusion?
No but this a good example what enforcing freedom does. People now live in fear of death more than ever, not knowing what the term freedom even means. Freedom is not something which can be declared. A state for example should protect it's citizens from harm because it has got legitimation from it's citizens to do so. But you surely agree that people should be allowed to leave, if they for some reason like it somewhere else better? I'm glad I don't live in a country which builds a wall around itself so the
You're missing a fundamental point. The exercise of any freedom, whether "given" or not, implies that some other freedoms are removed. In many cases, the removed freedoms may seem rather theoretical - for example, our current freedom to pollute by driving gas-guzzlers may remove our descendants' freedom to enjoy life on Earth in various ways; or my freedom to breathe removes your freedom to breathe the exact same air, which only becomes a problem if we're both sharing a very small airtight space. But wit
I think many confuse enforcing freedom with enforcing rights.
In a civilized society you have rights. For example the right to be physically and mentally unharmed or the right to speak freely. These rights are maintained. In my opinion the GPL does not enforce freedom. One may say it enforces certain rights. Like the right for everyone to adopt the work of others. This is not a bad thing. But to call it free is just not true and this is what I think is causing the harsh reactions of many BSD developers.
The relationship between rights and freedom is that specific rights give specific freedoms. There's no confusion in this case, since the rights granted by a licence correspond to the freedom to exercise those rights. Not all freedoms derive from rights, but the ones we're discussing do. For a comparable example, freedom of speech is a right in the U.S., granted by the Constitution, and enforced by law. In real life, all freedom has boundaries, and any specific freedom is relative to something. We talk ab
in this case, since the rights granted by a licence correspond to the freedom to exercise those rights.
Just that this license restricts you and also all others which might use your work. It is just claimed that this leads to "more freedom" because bad people are restricted from doing bad things. But in the end everyone is forced to comply with the terms of this license. A license cannot grant any right that you do not already have. At least not if source code is publically released by the copyright owner. In this case it can only restrict what you can do with it, else it is public domain.
In real life, all freedom has boundaries, and any specific freedom is relative to something. We talk about "freedom of speech", but there are externally imposed restraints to that, such as restraints on threats, or incitements to riot, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
"GPL gives the user freedom to access, use and modify the source code of a program they use"
What you just said is "GPL gives the user freedom". So it is not the software that is free from constraint, but the user. If the GPL zealots changed their moto to "Free Users", then you'd be right. However, the GPL is applied to the source code, and it restricts the use of that code. It is unarguably not free software (unless you mean free as in beer).
Your argument is like saying that thieves in jail are "Free" bec
It is unarguably not free software (unless you mean free as in beer).
Adding the word "unarguably" doesn't make it so. The "free beer" example is a good one: "free" modifies "beer" to indicate that the beer is free to the person consuming it. There's no rule of English that says you can't do the same with some other context-sensitive meaning of the word "free". The key here is context-sensitivity: when the FSF use "Free", they mean it in a certain sense. As long as that's understood and not obfuscated
Thanks for sticking with me. I think for the first time I actually get where the FSF is coming from. Its "Free" software, in that it can't be contained, or "put back in its box", it can't be owned or co-opted.
IANAL.... Theo should be looking at ways of bringing the improvements back. Open source projects can and Ibelieve should do clean-room re-implementations of GPL change-sets. The way this works is:
1) Person A does a diff of the two versions, reads them side-by-side, and documents the changes. 2) Person A sends the document which contains no code to the project email list. 3) Debate occurs over the best way to do things involving any number of people. 4) Person B Implements a similar idea but somewhat diffe
So, yeah, I can tell you you can argue with me, and I can tell you your arguments are full of hot air. In the case of BSD, there is an implicit element of the contract that bean-counters want to gloss over:
First is the moral obligation. Call it karma. People should show their appreciation for value received in ways that they can. Just because the license does not specify money or code or hardware or word-of-mouth advertizing in some specific forum, does not mean that it is moral or ethical to take and not gi
Before you set yourself upon me, please read my entire post. From the last two line:
Why's everyone got their panties in a bunch over something which the license allows? (I also understand the origin of this anger being the removal of the attribution and BSD text from the wireless kernel patch proposed, but it was just proposed, not accepted, and the situation was immediately resolved.)
The BSD license does permit use in proprietery code, but does not permit the removal of the copyright notice.
This is a very important point that alot of other posters to this thread, and the previous Theo thread seem to be completely ignorant of. The BSD license might permit you to use the code in a closed source project, but you have to credit the original author and leave the license intact.
Once a piece of code has been released under a BSD license, and a few people have contributed patches which are also released under a BSD license it becomes very difficult to remove the BSD license as you need everybody's pe
That's only because Theo, in his latest rant, is conveniently ignoring the fact that the code was dual-licensed, even though he did acknowledge that not too long ago. Theo's last post stated that dual-licensed code cannot be distributed with only one of the licenses still attached. BSD/GPL dual code, he says, cannot be distributed under the GPL unless you keep it BSD/GPL dual. That's a theory of it's own, which deserves some clinical therapy imho.
Theo's current post deals with the aspect of re-licensing pure
No, they wouldn't. You can distribute the code (almost) under the terms of the GPL because (almost) everything that GPL permits, BSD also permits. However, BSD does not allow the copyright to be removed. Strictly, you must distribute under the terms of the GPL as well as the requirement the the copyright notice remains. If you distribute purely under the GPL then you are strictly violating the BSD license, but it's so similar to the combined license that most people don't split hairs about it.
As far as I can tell, the whole fuss is due to a confusion over whether the code was covered by both licenses simultaneously (in which case it's almost but not quite identical to the GPL, because the BSD part has to remain intact), or the recipient's choice (in which case it's pretty much BSD, and either license can be removed at will).
And as far as I can tell, you yourself are confused over the matter too, by referring to the thing under contention as "the code."
Every sane person involved has accepted that dual-licensing does not mean that. Theo's the only one to contest what dual-licensing really means.
If Theo's crazy theory would be true it would throw away all dual-licensed GPL/proprietary code out there. MySQL and others would be undistributable. Are you saying I cannot operate a change on the MySQL code and redistribute under GPL?
That isn't what has happened at all. The copyright holder of the code himself has given his authorization, which he alone can give, to relicense the copyrighted work under the GPL exclusively.
Had he not done this, it would have been required to retain the BSD blurb and state "Some portions licensed under the BSD license."
But because the copyright holder himself authorized the relicensing, there is no such requirement. The copyright holder could have relicensed it under the CPL, the MPL, or even licensed it u
Well, the GPL-using people often portray themselves as friends of the BSD-using people. When a proprietary vendor takes code and gives nothing back, no one expects anything else of them. But you expect more courtesy from people you work with and are allied with on many matters.
More generally, I think the issue is this: Yes, the BSD license allows you to take code and do (more or less) whatever you want with it, including not returning changes. However, that this is possible does not mean it is ethical. B
BSD licensing people would prefer that you do return code; they just don't want to force you to do that (perhaps since they see such forcing as immoral in and of itself).
The GPL doesn't force anyone to do anything. If they don't want to release the code back to anyone then it is their option not to use the code in the first place, right? I know you're not a BSD person, but that seems like a wrongheaded position to take if that is true.
I've read Theo's rant, and I found the section about not sharing code back to be pretty humorous, considering that's the way the BSD license is written. If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?
The reason I like using the BSD license is that it's supposed to be progress. When you write good BSD code there's no reason anyone will need to rewrite that code, and it's the kind of code that you hope everyone will use because it makes applications better, or an application developed on top of it will be high quality itself.
Contrast that with the GPL, where code written with the GPL has to be rewritten if you want to use it for proprietary purposes. If you want to end all proprietary code then that's obviously a good thing, but it's not so good if you want the best code to be used, and for no-one to have to needlessly rewrite the code you're writing.
Take SQLite for example. It's in the public domain which is only slightly less restrictive as BSD. Anyone can use SQLite for any purpose. If I'm developing proprietary software and I need a lightweight database engine I know SQLite is available. It saves me time and money, and the software is going to be better as a result. That's why drh chose to make it available so freely: It's the best there is, and if someone can improve on it good luck to them.
Both licenses have their purposes of course, but I hope you can at least see why someone would prefer the BSD license.
So if it's supposed to be extra free then what's wrong with relicensing it as open source? Well there are two possible outcomes of releasing GPL changes to a BSD/MIT/public domain project:
The developers which wrote the software take the changed code and start using the GPL; the code can no longer be used in proprietary software. Whether you think that's a good thing or not it's a decision made against the original developer's will.
The developers which wrote the software continue developing their code and ignore the changes; the software is now either forked, causing compatibility issues, or changes are made in parallel, causing duplicated efforts. BSD is chosen so that no-one has to duplicate efforts, because the code is free.
Both of these outcomes just don't help. They don't help the software improve, they don't help anything. Rather than ask "Why choose BSD?" (which I hope I explained well enough earlier) why not ask "Why relicense BSD code under a different open source license?" Does he think that the developers of the BSD licensed code will start using his modified code along with the GPL license?
Take SQLite for example. Imagine if someone took SQLite and made some nice updates to it, but released the changes under the GPL. Now there are either duplicate efforts and compatibility worries, or the developer of SQLite is forced to use GPL and his software can't be used everywhere like he intended. A stable piece of code that used to be universal no longer is universal.
Using the GPL to close the original developers out is using a share-alike license to avoid sharing, and using an open collaboration license to prevent collaboration.
The developers which wrote the software take the changed code and start using the GPL; the code can no longer be used in proprietary software. Whether you think that's a good thing or not it's a decision made against the original developer's will.
And if someone makes proprietary modifications to it, then those are also not universally available and can't be used in either BSD or GPL projects. If that was what you wanted, why not choose a licence that actually enforces that like the LGPL? Again you're holdin
Proprietary modifications are the problem of the person doing the modification. Because they're proprietary, we (the open source community) never see them again. You can mark this down as a loss, in a sense, but because it's effectively invisible to us, we don't have to deal with it. We don't have to do the track-and-merge dance that forked open-source distributions have to do. So it's actually, weirdly, a benefit. The problem with relicensing is that you wind up with a code fork that can never heal.
If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?
So if I write some code and want it and future versions to be available under the BSD license I should GPL it? That does not make sense.
Say that I am for free speech, and you are for free speech with the one exception that it should not be allowed to argue against free speech. Would you say that I am wrong to want unlimited free speech, and if I w
So if I write some code and want it and future versions to be available under the BSD license I should GPL it? That does not make sense.
As far as I can tell, there is no way to ensure that future versions of a license will be BSD, since the BSD allows virtually any use. If you want to mandate that the source remains open, you need a copyleft. If you want to give freedome to do anything, use BSD/MIT-style licenses. It's really pretty cut and dried.
BSD (Score:1, Flamebait)
Why would anyone trust code on people who cannot even keep on to their own?
It is like lending money to a man who then throws it all across the street.
If i wanted to throw money all around, i would do it myself.
Actually, i would support BSD in a world where there is only GPL and BSD licensed code.
But until that world comes, BSD just hinders freedom.
Re:BSD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally prefer the GPL, but I've been around Slashdot for a few years and understand the "more freedom" argument from BSD fans. That "more freedom" is the freedom to relicense or even completely close up the code, returning nothing to the original project.
Why's everyone got their panties in a bunch over something which the license allows? (I also understand the origin of this anger being the removal of the attribution and BSD text from the wireless kernel patch proposed, but it was just proposed, not accepted, and the situation was immediately resolved.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not much different from back when Transgaming first started with Cedega. There were protests from the Wine guys that the code had been taken and nothing was returned. The rational members in the debate were saying "Then why license the code the way you did?" Wine sw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, improvements on the GPL side won't be BSD licensed, but any proprietary company which takes it won't contribute back, eit
Bzzz, sorry, wrong answer. (Score:1)
When a BSD/GPL code is passed along, it will be forever dual-licensed because the GPL guarantees it:
"if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
The key words being "all the rights". Including the rights that you get by way of the BSD
No, you are wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
The code in question had the BSD license included, plus the author (copyright holder) added a condition saying that "alternatively," the GPL could be used.
One is therefore free to select the alternate license and ignore the BSD license, and that includes the part about keeping it around.
Now, and this is key, the author has every right to put in something which says "chose either for yourself, but keep both in what you pass on." He didn't, and the only requirement to keep the BSD lic
Re: (Score:1)
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
I think your correct that there is no obligation to maintain BSD code rights, however there is a choice to be made.
The principle behind the GPL is no author gets locked out of their own code and changes made to it. By not maintaining BSD rights your doing that to the authors of the BSD Code. However by maintaining the BSD rights your allowing yourself to be locked out of changes to your code.
So which principle will you go for? Sharing the common code under both licenses seems to be the principled stance fo
Re: (Score:1)
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
Now, _that_ is a weak argument IMHO, but it could fly nonetheless. My opinion is still: before doing the choosing between BSD and GPL rights to excercise, you had BOTH. So, you are still obligated to pass both along.
I know that if _I_ ever come to the position where I must exercise the choosing and those rights, I would explicitly pass both rights along because it was the desire of the original author of something that I derived my work from and that should be enough for me. Now, if _I_ am the sole author
Re: (Score:2)
However, because the code is licensed to you by the author, who retains the copyright, you don't get to strip the BSD license. Theo was very explicit about this, citing copyright law. I'll even bet that his argument, made in a public mailing list, can be used in court.
Now, what would be the purpose of having a BSD+GPL license? Here's one possibility: because
Why is it BSD proponents can't read? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This post brought to you by reading comprehension, and the letter K.
Actually, it does not look that way.
I read the GPL many times, thank you (my desktop has exactly 80 [*] copies of the GPLv2 installed on it), and I have already made a comprehensive effort to try to understand its dipositions and its interactions with other, different-but-compatible licenses.
Please, read this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00 559.html [debian.org]
and this:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00 361.html [debian.org]
[*]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't think either one is more free than the other. I think it comes down to the GPL keeping code free and the BSD license keeping people free.
Wrong.
BSD gives all the freedom possible to first-level users/developers of the software.
GPL doesn't. It takes some of that freedom away (the freedom to restrict other users/developers) in order to ensure more people get the resulting limited freedom.
I think it's more exact to say that BSD is a lot of freedom for less people, while the GPL means somewhat less freedom to a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've read Theo's rant, and I found the section about not sharing code back to be pretty humorous, considering that's the way the BSD license is written. If you wanted to ensure that code be shared back into your projects, you'd use a copyleft-style license instead of a BSD/MIT-style license, wouldn't you?
Say I just don't like the GPL. Say I don't like the idea of giving a legal ultimatum about how they can use my code--the code that I wrote and want to share. Say I want Microsoft to be able to use it in an operating system, Real to be able to use it in an audio player, etc.
It is still good manners for people that make improvements in my code to send me changes. I helped them, and good people return favors when they can. So why didn't I use the LGPL? Well, that license is just a bit more of a pain, and I
Re:BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Telling me I can do something and then rebuking me for doing it is kind of a shitty practice, isn't it?
I'm a little more of a libertarian than most, but I believe people should have rights to do some things that I, personally, believe are wrong. If I'm the only person that can give those rights, I'll do so.
Microsoft and Real won't contribute back, either.
Said Theo de Raadt on the Linux kernel mailing list (yesterday?): When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK.
So, perhaps not Microsoft and Real, but maybe more than you would expect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, I believe people should have the right to troll on Slashdot, because I believe that's the only way to ensure that people who genuinely hold controversial views feel able to argue their case. Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to mod trolls down? If so, why?No, that's for if you want to demand that code be shared. If you would like code to be shared, and intend to complain if it isn't when it reasonably could be, but absolutely do not want to take away the licensee's freedom to decide for themselves whether to share or not, then you should not add anything to the license. It would probably be appropriate to mention your attitude in the README, though.
(One very good reason not to put this kind of stuff in the license is that the GP apparently was specifically interested in allowing large companies to use his code. Large companies hate custom licenses. Stick with something standard if you want the commercial world to even bother looking at your code.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Rebuke" in a legal context only really makes sense when the receiver should have known he was in the wrong, in the first place. The license ie expected to be explicit, to keep the number of rebukes low, o
Redefining "Free" is also shitty practice (Score:2, Insightful)
Through the use of the GPL, the FSF redefines "Free" by imposing various restrictions (if you use this code, then you must ...). How is that "Free"?
And before you flame me for being anti-GPL, I have released a lot of work under GPL. I think the GPL is very beneficial, but that does not mean I have to drink the kool-aid.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's a related underlying point, which is that the FSF and its fans often seem to deliberately conflate the above context-sensitive meaning of "free" with a more general meaning that's more familiar to more people. It's a PR game as tricky as any Mi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why is it then that Saddam had to be forcibly evicted? Are the wetern freedoms merely illusion?
No but this a good example what enforcing freedom does. People now live in fear of death more than ever, not knowing what the term freedom even means. Freedom is not something which can be declared.
A state for example should protect it's citizens from harm because it has got legitimation from it's citizens to do so. But you surely agree that people should be allowed to leave, if they for some reason like it somewhere else better? I'm glad I don't live in a country which builds a wall around itself so the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In real life, all freedom has boundaries, and any specific freedom is relative to something. We talk ab
Re: (Score:1)
in this case, since the rights granted by a licence correspond to the freedom to exercise those rights.
Just that this license restricts you and also all others which might use your work. It is just claimed that this leads to "more freedom" because bad people are restricted from doing bad things. But in the end everyone is forced to comply with the terms of this license. A license cannot grant any right that you do not already have. At least not if source code is publically released by the copyright owner. In this case it can only restrict what you can do with it, else it is public domain.
In real life, all freedom has boundaries, and any specific freedom is relative to something. We talk about "freedom of speech", but there are externally imposed restraints to that, such as restraints on threats, or incitements to riot, or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Yes in real life f
Re: (Score:1)
What you just said is "GPL gives the user freedom". So it is not the software that is free from constraint, but the user. If the GPL zealots changed their moto to "Free Users", then you'd be right. However, the GPL is applied to the source code, and it restricts the use of that code. It is unarguably not free software (unless you mean free as in beer).
Your argument is like saying that thieves in jail are "Free" bec
Re: (Score:2)
Adding the word "unarguably" doesn't make it so. The "free beer" example is a good one: "free" modifies "beer" to indicate that the beer is free to the person consuming it. There's no rule of English that says you can't do the same with some other context-sensitive meaning of the word "free". The key here is context-sensitivity: when the FSF use "Free", they mean it in a certain sense. As long as that's understood and not obfuscated
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for sticking with me. I think for the first time I actually get where the FSF is coming from. Its "Free" software, in that it can't be contained, or "put back in its box", it can't be owned or co-opted.
Agree (Score:2)
Theo should be looking at ways of bringing the improvements back. Open source projects can and Ibelieve should do clean-room re-implementations of GPL change-sets. The way this works is:
1) Person A does a diff of the two versions, reads them side-by-side, and documents the changes.
2) Person A sends the document which contains no code to the project email list.
3) Debate occurs over the best way to do things involving any number of people.
4) Person B Implements a similar idea but somewhat diffe
Re: (Score:1)
The real point is that GPL'ed code is automatically prevented from being given back to non-GPL projects by law.
Nothing restricted by the GPL should be called free.
moral obligation and enlightened self-interest (Score:1)
In the case of BSD, there is an implicit element of the contract that bean-counters want to gloss over:
First is the moral obligation. Call it karma. People should show their appreciation for value received in ways that they can. Just because the license does not specify money or code or hardware or word-of-mouth advertizing in some specific forum, does not mean that it is moral or ethical to take and not gi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Read these two posts.
1> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118865605929266 &w=2 [marc.info]
2> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118865748911976 &w=2 [marc.info]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD license does permit use in proprietery code, but does not permit the removal of the copyright notice.
This is a very important point that alot of other posters to this thread, and the previous Theo thread seem to be completely ignorant of. The BSD license might permit you to use the code in a closed source project, but you have to credit the original author and leave the license intact.
Once a piece of code has been released under a BSD license, and a few people have contributed patches which are also released under a BSD license it becomes very difficult to remove the BSD license as you need everybody's pe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Theo's last post stated that dual-licensed code cannot be distributed with only one of the licenses still attached. BSD/GPL dual code, he says, cannot be distributed under the GPL unless you keep it BSD/GPL dual. That's a theory of it's own, which deserves some clinical therapy imho.
Theo's current post deals with the aspect of re-licensing pure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This time it's the GPL that prevents you from removing the notice, not the BSD (anymore).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they wouldn't. You can distribute the code (almost) under the terms of the GPL because (almost) everything that GPL permits, BSD also permits. However, BSD does not allow the copyright to be removed. Strictly, you must distribute under the terms of the GPL as well as the requirement the the copyright notice remains. If you distribute purely under the GPL then you are strictly violating the BSD license, but it's so similar to the combined license that most people don't split hairs about it.
As far as
Re: (Score:1)
And as far as I can tell, you yourself are confused over the matter too, by referring to the thing under contention as "the code."
The problem here is that, in terms of co
Re: (Score:1)
If Theo's crazy theory would be true it would throw away all dual-licensed GPL/proprietary code out there. MySQL and others would be undistributable. Are you saying I cannot operate a change on the MySQL code and redistribute under GPL?
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright holder of the code himself has given his authorization, which he alone can give, to relicense the copyrighted work under the GPL exclusively.
Had he not done this, it would have been required to retain the BSD blurb and state "Some portions licensed under the BSD license."
But because the copyright holder himself authorized the relicensing, there is no such requirement. The copyright holder could have relicensed it under the CPL, the MPL, or even licensed it u
Re: (Score:2)
More generally, I think the issue is this: Yes, the BSD license allows you to take code and do (more or less) whatever you want with it, including not returning changes. However, that this is possible does not mean it is ethical. B
Re: (Score:1)
Re:BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrast that with the GPL, where code written with the GPL has to be rewritten if you want to use it for proprietary purposes. If you want to end all proprietary code then that's obviously a good thing, but it's not so good if you want the best code to be used, and for no-one to have to needlessly rewrite the code you're writing.
Take SQLite for example. It's in the public domain which is only slightly less restrictive as BSD. Anyone can use SQLite for any purpose. If I'm developing proprietary software and I need a lightweight database engine I know SQLite is available. It saves me time and money, and the software is going to be better as a result. That's why drh chose to make it available so freely: It's the best there is, and if someone can improve on it good luck to them.
Both licenses have their purposes of course, but I hope you can at least see why someone would prefer the BSD license.
So if it's supposed to be extra free then what's wrong with relicensing it as open source? Well there are two possible outcomes of releasing GPL changes to a BSD/MIT/public domain project:
-
The developers which wrote the software take the changed code and start using the GPL; the code can no longer be used in proprietary software. Whether you think that's a good thing or not it's a decision made against the original developer's will.
- The developers which wrote the software continue developing their code and ignore the changes; the software is now either forked, causing compatibility issues, or changes are made in parallel, causing duplicated efforts. BSD is chosen so that no-one has to duplicate efforts, because the code is free.
Both of these outcomes just don't help. They don't help the software improve, they don't help anything. Rather than ask "Why choose BSD?" (which I hope I explained well enough earlier) why not ask "Why relicense BSD code under a different open source license?" Does he think that the developers of the BSD licensed code will start using his modified code along with the GPL license?Take SQLite for example. Imagine if someone took SQLite and made some nice updates to it, but released the changes under the GPL. Now there are either duplicate efforts and compatibility worries, or the developer of SQLite is forced to use GPL and his software can't be used everywhere like he intended. A stable piece of code that used to be universal no longer is universal.
Using the GPL to close the original developers out is using a share-alike license to avoid sharing, and using an open collaboration license to prevent collaboration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if someone makes proprietary modifications to it, then those are also not universally available and can't be used in either BSD or GPL projects. If that was what you wanted, why not choose a licence that actually enforces that like the LGPL? Again you're holdin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with relicensing is that you wind up with a code fork that can never heal.
Re: (Score:1)
So if I write some code and want it and future versions to be available under the BSD license I should GPL it? That does not make sense.
Say that I am for free speech, and you are for free speech with the one exception that it should not be allowed to argue against free speech. Would you say that I am wrong to want unlimited free speech, and if I w
Re: (Score:1)
As far as I can tell, there is no way to ensure that future versions of a license will be BSD, since the BSD allows virtually any use. If you want to mandate that the source remains open, you need a copyleft. If you want to give freedome to do anything, use BSD/MIT-style licenses. It's really pretty cut and dried.
Re: (Score:2)