I'm a big fan of the BSD and BSD-style licenses. I have written a lot of code under the BSD-style license and been happy about it. It has let me apply that code in places where corporate policies are too anal to allow GPL code. The extensions that ARE made are so application-specific that nobody else would want them anyway. However, my code would never have been used at all in these circumstances if it were GPL licenced.
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. But hey, RMS says that freedom is good, so you can do that, right?"
Does the BSD license allow people to make extensions and GPL the base code plus those extensions? Absolutely. Do BSD-style developers, then, have a right to be miffed if this is what happens? It's a hard question.
I think most of the miffed-ness of the situation comes from the attitude of GPL zealots. A basic tenet behind their license is "if you take code then you have to give it back under the same terms under which you got it." A part of their philosophy seems to be "you should not be allowed to benefit from our code without giving back improvements to it." They are the ones who decided on this policy, and they claim a moral (yes, moral) high-ground because of it. But really, they only mean this within the context of their own ideological community. It's really a difference of attitude.
"Hey, thanks for the code; we are going to use it to further our cause of announcing to the world how much better we are than you."
As an analogy, let's say I go up to you and ask for $20 for an art project. You oblige. For my art project, I make up posters around the city that say:
"[YOU] IS A GIANT ASS"
with your face on them, and plaster them around town. Now, you didn't explicitly stipulate I couldn't, and I was certainly within your legal and artistic rights to do what I did. You have no cause to be angry, right?
I remember a documentary I saw once about land mines. They showed a small mine being dismantled by some poor sap whose job it was to go out and dismantle land mines. In it was a Motorola chip. It was probably some terribly generic part like a 555 timer or 4-input NAND gate or something; it's not like Motorola was in the business of making land mines.
Now, if Motorola saw this, do they have a right to be a little miffed? "Ah," say the slashdotters, "Motorola sold their 555-timer on the open market to any buyer, they have no right to be miffed when someone uses it in a device that blows the legs off little children!" Right?
Does the BSD license allow people to make extensions and GPL the base code plus those extensions? Absolutely. Do BSD-style developers, then, have a right to be miffed if this is what happens? It's a hard question.
I would say that on the basis of what I've seen lately, the answer should be "no".
The GPL claim is: We don't want people to be able to close our code The BSD answer to that was: But source can't be closed, our version of it will always remain open
Now that was all fine and good, if you don't mind you
No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it.
You are misrepresenting the GPL. You do not have to give it to "anybody who wants it". You are required to give the entire source code of the executable module containing GPLed code to anybody you give binaries to. And you are required to give the recipient permission to redistribute what you give them under the same terms.
I'd argue that there would be no problem adding GPLed code to an ITAR restricted software system since the ITAR restriction is coming from the US Govt, not the developer/distribute
I remember a documentary I saw once about land mines. They showed a small mine being dismantled by some poor sap whose job it was to go out and dismantle land mines. In it was a Motorola chip. It was probably some terribly generic part like a 555 timer or 4-input NAND gate or something; it's not like Motorola was in the business of making land mines.
Now, if Motorola saw this, do they have a right to be a little miffed? "Ah," say the slashdotters, "Motorola sold their 555-timer on the open market to a
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. But hey, RMS says that freedom is good, so you can do that, right?"
No, because if it's yoursmall component, you can re-licence it however you wish.
I have written a lot of code under the BSD-style license and been happy about it. It has let me apply that code in places where corporate policies are too anal to allow GPL code.
That is YOUR code It does not in one bit matter whether you "GPL'd it", it is still yours, to dual license, or to redistribute as BSD, or to stop distributing it at all, and you can give copies to that corporation to do whatever they want, even if you have posted it everywhere with a GPL license. (I'm assumming you told the truth wh
I'm a big fan of the BSD and BSD-style licenses. [...] Does the BSD license allow people to make extensions and GPL the base code plus those extensions? Absolutely. Do BSD-style developers, then, have a right to be miffed if this is what happens? It's a hard question.
*SIGH!*
It's not a question at all: (from the wikipedia article on BSD licenses)
[...] * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * Redistribu
Either you don't understand how copy licensing works, or you're using very sloppy language and it's going to confuse someone else, so I'm going to correct it.
I have written a lot of code under the BSD-style license and been happy about it. It has let me apply that code in places where corporate policies are too anal to allow GPL code.
If you wrote the code, then it doesn't matter if you've licensed it to anyone with the GPL or any other license. You can use or copy it for whatever purposes you want, without obeying the terms of any license, because you have the copyright. The BSD license would only come into play if you were talking about using other people's code.
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. [...]"
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. But hey, RMS says that freedom is good, so you can do that, right?"
So, you're another one of those "I don't like the GPL, but I haven't actually read the license" type of people, eh?
Well, to save you the trouble of actually reading the license, I will point you to a quick s [wikipedia.org]
Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.
It's a problem of attitude... (Score:2, Insightful)
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. But hey, RMS says that freedom is good, so you can do that, right?"
Does the BSD license allow people to make extensions and GPL the base code plus those extensions? Absolutely. Do BSD-style developers, then, have a right to be miffed if this is what happens? It's a hard question.
I think most of the miffed-ness of the situation comes from the attitude of GPL zealots. A basic tenet behind their license is "if you take code then you have to give it back under the same terms under which you got it." A part of their philosophy seems to be "you should not be allowed to benefit from our code without giving back improvements to it." They are the ones who decided on this policy, and they claim a moral (yes, moral) high-ground because of it. But really, they only mean this within the context of their own ideological community. It's really a difference of attitude.
"Hey, thanks for the code; we are going to use it to further our cause of announcing to the world how much better we are than you."
As an analogy, let's say I go up to you and ask for $20 for an art project. You oblige. For my art project, I make up posters around the city that say:
"[YOU] IS A GIANT ASS"
with your face on them, and plaster them around town. Now, you didn't explicitly stipulate I couldn't, and I was certainly within your legal and artistic rights to do what I did. You have no cause to be angry, right?
I remember a documentary I saw once about land mines. They showed a small mine being dismantled by some poor sap whose job it was to go out and dismantle land mines. In it was a Motorola chip. It was probably some terribly generic part like a 555 timer or 4-input NAND gate or something; it's not like Motorola was in the business of making land mines.
Now, if Motorola saw this, do they have a right to be a little miffed? "Ah," say the slashdotters, "Motorola sold their 555-timer on the open market to any buyer, they have no right to be miffed when someone uses it in a device that blows the legs off little children!" Right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say that on the basis of what I've seen lately, the answer should be "no".
The GPL claim is: We don't want people to be able to close our code
The BSD answer to that was: But source can't be closed, our version of it will always remain open
Now that was all fine and good, if you don't mind you
Re: (Score:1)
No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it.
You are misrepresenting the GPL. You do not have to give it to "anybody who wants it". You are required to give the entire source code of the executable module containing GPLed code to anybody you give binaries to. And you are required to give the recipient permission to redistribute what you give them under the same terms.
I'd argue that there would be no problem adding GPLed code to an ITAR restricted software system since the ITAR restriction is coming from the US Govt, not the developer/distribute
Re: (Score:1)
I remember a documentary I saw once about land mines. They showed a small mine being dismantled by some poor sap whose job it was to go out and dismantle land mines. In it was a Motorola chip. It was probably some terribly generic part like a 555 timer or 4-input NAND gate or something; it's not like Motorola was in the business of making land mines.
Now, if Motorola saw this, do they have a right to be a little miffed? "Ah," say the slashdotters, "Motorola sold their 555-timer on the open market to a
Re: (Score:1)
No, because if it's your small component, you can re-licence it however you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
That is YOUR code It does not in one bit matter whether you "GPL'd it", it is still yours, to dual license, or to redistribute as BSD, or to stop distributing it at all, and you can give copies to that corporation to do whatever they want, even if you have posted it everywhere with a GPL license. (I'm assumming you told the truth wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*SIGH!*
It's not a question at all:
(from the wikipedia article on BSD licenses)
Re: (Score:2)
I have written a lot of code under the BSD-style license and been happy about it. It has let me apply that code in places where corporate policies are too anal to allow GPL code.
If you wrote the code, then it doesn't matter if you've licensed it to anyone with the GPL or any other license. You can use or copy it for whatever purposes you want, without obeying the terms of any license, because you have the copyright. The BSD license would only come into play if you were talking about using other people's code.
"No, I'm sorry, you can't integrate my small component into your giant proprietary and ITAR-restricted satellite system unless you agree to give away the entire code to your giant ITAR-restricted satellite system to anybody who wants it. [...]"
The GPL license
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're another one of those "I don't like the GPL, but I haven't actually read the license" type of people, eh?
Well, to save you the trouble of actually reading the license, I will point you to a quick s [wikipedia.org]