Having talked to a few BSD licence fans most of them like the licence because it allows another group to take their code and close it off.
This is exactly what the Kernel and other guys are doing, they are taking the code and putting a GPL header in there, closing it off from the BSD developers.
The only difference here seems to be that because the BSD developers can see the changes and improvements being made they want to include them. Whilst putting the GPL on may be against the spirit of cooperation it seems to me to be exactly the kind of closing off of the code that the BSD developers want to allow.
Having talked to a few BSD licence fans most of them like the licence because it allows another group to take their code and close it off.
Yes. That's because there are situations where it makes sense that somebody should be able to do that. The argument in this case is that this isn't one of them.
That's the problem with your reasoning. You are accusing people who've released code under the BSD of not having considered the cons of the license. In fact, you can be sure that plenty of them were well aw
I don't get it. Why would you provide the right to relicense if you don't actually want that happening? Isn't that what the GPL is for? And what are these pros that BSD licenses have over GPL licenses that outweigh the cons?
It seems most people don't have a problem understanding that BSD source code can be used for closed source products and that's just swell. People also understand that GPL source, when redistributed, must be GPL.
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code. If you redistribute BSD source code - an action which, unlike GPL source code, isn't mandatory - you MUST redistribute it with BSD license. You can't re
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code
Care to explain your legal theory for this? The BSD license must remain, but it can be superseded by another license. If you modify BSD source, and you make your modifications GPL, the entire file is effectively GPL.
However, that's not what happened here. The original source files were, by the original author, under a *dual* GPL/BSD license. They were accepted a
How can the BSD license be superseded? OK, sure, the original author can change the license of course, but as there is no termination clause, the already distributed copies are still fully licensed and thus remain redistributable under the BSD license. Right? The BSD license says that a modified source file must be redistributed *as BSD*. So it is simply not within the rights obtained through the license to apply GPL to the changed file. NO CAN DO! Please note that I am talking here about the generic case of
The BSD license says that a modified source file must be redistributed *as BSD*.
The BSD license doesn't say this. If it did, it'd be (essentially) the GPL. The BSD license allows to create derived works, and to distribute those derived works under any license you want, so long as the BSD notice and copyright stay on the source files (and attribution clause, for those versions of the BSD license). This is why you can use BSD code in closed source projects.
So it is simply not within the rights obtained thr
The BSD license doesn't say this. If it did, it'd be (essentially) the GPL. The BSD license allows to create derived works, and to distribute those derived works under any license you want, so long as the BSD notice and copyright stay on the source files (and attribution clause, for those versions of the BSD license). This is why you can use BSD code in closed source projects.
We agree that the license requires retention of the copyright notice, the conditional grant of rights to use, modify and redistribute
What would be the point of this requirement, if not the implication that the same license applies to the modified and/or redistributed file? Then how can you say it doesn't say that it doesn't
Because the distribution of derived works (that is, modified files) is a very different thing that the distribution of the original files verbatim. In a derived work, while the BSD notice must remain, the BSD license applies only to the original BSD licensed code, not to the derived work as a whole. This effectively
I am sorry, but I still don't get it. How can the GPL get away with requiring derived works to be GPL'ed, then? As for the double license, I am also still confused as to what this means.
I know you are saying that the following is actually not what the BSD license says, although it's what I understand from it. Please disregard that disagreement for a moment, and let's look at two paraphrased, quite similar licenses, B and G.
B: This license grants you rights to use, modify, redistribute source alone or binarie
I am sorry, but I still don't get it. How can the GPL get away with requiring derived works to be GPL'ed, then?
Lets take a step back for a moment. One of the rights reserved to copyright holders is the right to create derived works. Exactly what defines a derived work is extremely fuzzy - it's not well defined by law, and lots and lots of lawsuits rest on trying to find out whether it's a real derived work or not.
When you create a derived work, the copyright for that work belongs to you, not to the auth
Now we are really getting somewhere, I'd like to thank you very much for your patience with me.
The BSD license requires few limitations - the BSD license has to stay on the original files, and in some version you have to provide attribution. However, there's no limitation on the license *of the derived work*.
The BSD license doesn't use words like "derived work" and "license". It says "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
So you are saying that "retain" can't possibly be understood as to apply to the redistributed (supposedly modified and thus "derived") source, and thus imply a requirement for the derived work to use the same license?
No, because that's not what it says. Requiring that the notice remain intact is *not* the same as requiring that the rights be preserved. Note that it allows distribution "with modification". Since it places no limits on the license of a derived work, and the copyright of a derived work reside
Sorry for this late a reply, I hope you still see it, and if you don't, well, it's not that important. At first I thought it was unnecessary to reply, because all that needs to be said, has been. After a few days of consideration, I think it may be relevant to summarize after all. Not because I want to claim "last post", but because I think we have reached the very core of the issue.
It says it must retain *the text*, not the rights.
I agree that that is what it says. The question is whether retaining the tex
What GP is saying is not some "legal theory"; it's copyright law.
The BSD license must remain, but it can be superseded by another license. If you modify BSD source, and you make your modifications GPL, the entire file is effectively GPL.
Not quite. The file is a GPL-licensed derivative work from a BSD licensed original work. The GPL applies to your modifications and to the resulting derivative work, but not to the original BSD-licensed work. The BSD license a
What GP is saying is not some "legal theory"; it's copyright law.
The term "legal theory" means your interpretation of which laws are applicable and how they apply. When I ask for it, I'm asking for an explanation (and preferably a citation) of how copyright law supports the position, not a blanket assertion. The OPs claim does not mesh with my understand or interpretation of copyright law, so if we're just going to toss claims back and forth I can just response with "no, copyright law doesn't say that". I
IANAL, but I understand the theory. Basically, the author has granted the public a license to use the software in a certain way. THis can't be superceded by throwing on a license. Now, it gets more complicated because more than the code may be copyrighted.
Ok, if I create a literary work, let us say it is a short story called "The City Beneath Puget Sound."
Suppose I release it under the BSDL.
You can publish it, under the terms of that license. There is even a question as to whether you can issue an *additi
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code. If you redistribute BSD source code - an action which, unlike GPL source code, isn't mandatory - you MUST redistribute it with BSD license. You can't redistribute BSD licensed source under GPL (...)
Let's put it this way: once the BSD code comes in contact with the GPL (throught dual-licensing BSD+GPL) the GPL must retain the BSD license (*) From that point on,
Stripping the license is not the same thing as "do what you want with the code." You can't legally strip the license. What is the point of the license, then? A lot of people are making this mistake on this Slashdot thread. You all got to ask yourselves why is it, then, that proprietary code that has incorporated BSD code mentions "Copyright The Regents of the University of California, etc." if you can just rip the license and claim it's all yours?
Isn't closing them out the point (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly what the Kernel and other guys are doing, they are taking the code and putting a GPL header in there, closing it off from the BSD developers.
The only difference here seems to be that because the BSD developers can see the changes and improvements being made they want to include them. Whilst putting the GPL on may be against the spirit of cooperation it seems to me to be exactly the kind of closing off of the code that the BSD developers want to allow.
You're missing the point. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. That's because there are situations where it makes sense that somebody should be able to do that. The argument in this case is that this isn't one of them.
That's the problem with your reasoning. You are accusing people who've released code under the BSD of not having considered the cons of the license. In fact, you can be sure that plenty of them were well aw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
People also understand that GPL source, when redistributed, must be GPL.
What so many people inexplicably seem to fail to understand is, that BSD source, when redistributed as source, has the same "stickyness" as GPL code. If you redistribute BSD source code - an action which, unlike GPL source code, isn't mandatory - you MUST redistribute it with BSD license. You can't re
Re: (Score:2)
Care to explain your legal theory for this? The BSD license must remain, but it can be superseded by another license. If you modify BSD source, and you make your modifications GPL, the entire file is effectively GPL.
However, that's not what happened here. The original source files were, by the original author, under a *dual* GPL/BSD license. They were accepted a
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD license says that a modified source file must be redistributed *as BSD*. So it is simply not within the rights obtained through the license to apply GPL to the changed file. NO CAN DO! Please note that I am talking here about the generic case of
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD license doesn't say this. If it did, it'd be (essentially) the GPL. The BSD license allows to create derived works, and to distribute those derived works under any license you want, so long as the BSD notice and copyright stay on the source files (and attribution clause, for those versions of the BSD license). This is why you can use BSD code in closed source projects.
Re: (Score:2)
We agree that the license requires retention of the copyright notice, the conditional grant of rights to use, modify and redistribute
Re: (Score:2)
Because the distribution of derived works (that is, modified files) is a very different thing that the distribution of the original files verbatim. In a derived work, while the BSD notice must remain, the BSD license applies only to the original BSD licensed code, not to the derived work as a whole. This effectively
Re: (Score:2)
As for the double license, I am also still confused as to what this means.
I know you are saying that the following is actually not what the BSD license says, although it's what I understand from it. Please disregard that disagreement for a moment, and let's look at two paraphrased, quite similar licenses, B and G.
B: This license grants you rights to use, modify, redistribute source alone or binarie
Re: (Score:2)
Lets take a step back for a moment. One of the rights reserved to copyright holders is the right to create derived works. Exactly what defines a derived work is extremely fuzzy - it's not well defined by law, and lots and lots of lawsuits rest on trying to find out whether it's a real derived work or not.
When you create a derived work, the copyright for that work belongs to you, not to the auth
Re: (Score:2)
The BSD license doesn't use words like "derived work" and "license". It says "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because that's not what it says. Requiring that the notice remain intact is *not* the same as requiring that the rights be preserved. Note that it allows distribution "with modification". Since it places no limits on the license of a derived work, and the copyright of a derived work reside
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that that is what it says. The question is whether retaining the tex
Re: (Score:1)
What GP is saying is not some "legal theory"; it's copyright law.
Not quite. The file is a GPL-licensed derivative work from a BSD licensed original work. The GPL applies to your modifications and to the resulting derivative work, but not to the original BSD-licensed work. The BSD license a
Re: (Score:2)
The term "legal theory" means your interpretation of which laws are applicable and how they apply. When I ask for it, I'm asking for an explanation (and preferably a citation) of how copyright law supports the position, not a blanket assertion. The OPs claim does not mesh with my understand or interpretation of copyright law, so if we're just going to toss claims back and forth I can just response with "no, copyright law doesn't say that". I
Re: (Score:2)
Now, it gets more complicated because more than the code may be copyrighted.
Ok, if I create a literary work, let us say it is a short story called "The City Beneath Puget Sound."
Suppose I release it under the BSDL.
You can publish it, under the terms of that license. There is even a question as to whether you can issue an *additi
BSD license, the ultimate retrovirus (Score:2)
Let's put it this way: once the BSD code comes in contact with the GPL (throught dual-licensing BSD+GPL) the GPL must retain the BSD license (*) From that point on,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't legally strip the license. What is the point of the license, then?
A lot of people are making this mistake on this Slashdot thread. You all got to ask yourselves why is it, then, that proprietary code that has incorporated BSD code mentions "Copyright The Regents of the University of California, etc." if you can just rip the license and claim it's all yours?