Why do they feel obliged to remove the BSD license from the Linux port of the driver? If they just keep it dual-licensed, there isn't a problem.
Or did someone issue an edict that Linux kernel code can't be dual-licensed, at some point when I wasn't paying attention?
It seems to me that some Linux developers want to deny derivative works to the original authors. I guess they think that their not a part of a community, but a members-only club, and damn anyone not using the home team kernel.
Pretty much. I wonder how much of a problem the GPL will become for Linux developers in the next few years. FreeBSD is getting things like DTrace and ZFS from Solaris as is Darwin, because the CDDL and APSL are non-viral and so can be used without affecting the license of the rest of the project. Linux can take code from the BSDs and not give back, but it can't do the same with things like XNU and OpenSolaris, both of which can share code with each other and *BSD.
Or did someone issue an edict that Linux kernel code can't be dual-licensed, at some point when I wasn't paying attention?
I think the point of the story is the following: 1. Developer A writes some code for OpenBSD (or whatever) 2. Developer B says "that's cool, I wish Linux had that" 3. Developer B ports developer A's code to Linux 4. Developer B then starts improving on A's code
However, developer B doesn't want to release his changes under the BSD license, so the improved version goes out GPL-only. Developer A says "hey, wait, that sucks", because now he can't incorporate those changes back into OpenBSD, which does (I assume) have a policy that all code must be BSD-licensed.
One one hand, it's unfortunate, because OpenBSD loses out. On the other hand, the original author wrote the code knowing that someone could take it and not release changes (for instance, incorporate it into Windows or Mac OS X or SunOS or something like that), and this really isn't all that much different.
I agree completely, this comes to show the BSD weakness not the GPL weakness, it seem that BSD people who bitch about it would want their BSD code to behave like GPL in some respects while still behaving like BSD in others (we still want to let people to use it who don't want to give back improvements to the code) -- I still don't see how you can eat the cake and still have it.
I am considering choosing the BSDL for any future large projects on the idea that one cannot compete with Free (both senses). However, if someone started usng my code in GPL projects and not giving back, (if we wanted it back) I would see if anyone in the community was willing to do an analysis of those changes so we could implement them ourselves. This would probably have two impacts: 1) Force those using our code to either give back or fork, and 2) Driving up the costs of code maintenance for those who
>> 1. Developer A writes some code for OpenBSD (or whatever) 2. Developer B says "that's cool, I wish Linux had that" 3. Developer B ports developer A's code to Linux 4. Developer B then starts improving on A's code >> I think it's ABCBA, or ABCAB -- writing the code, implementing it and code review means 3 parties.
>>However, developer B doesn't want to release his changes under the BSD license, so the improved version goes out GPL-only. Developer A says "hey, wait, that sucks", because now he c
Porting a wireless driver from OpenBSD to Windows is just like copying code;-) Note however that nothing prevents the OpenBSD driver developer from reading the code, thinking about it, coming back, and ading his own versions of the improvements. Or safer yet, askign someone *else* to read the code, provide a specification of the algorythm, an then reimplementing it since the algorythm itself is not subject to copyright protection (IANAL, but read the basic analysis in Gates v. Bando as to what is subject t
The dual licensing thing works fine, but the GNU people never get all of what they want. The GPL lets the driver not taint the kernel. You can put non-GPL code in the Linux kernel, but you really can't distribute it once you do that.
The *BSD people can't put GPL-only code in their kernel for a similar reason: the GPL code could be included by the end user but not distributed unless it followed the GPL, which some BSD distributors likely don't.
Everyone seems to be completely missing the point here. As someone else pointed out, GPL supporters love to claim the moral high ground when it comes to comparing the GPL to anything proprietary and they love to say how the GPL promotes sharing and openness. So how do you claim the moral high ground when you just took someone else's project and forked it so that they can't use it the way they originally intended?
So what if that's what if that's what the BSD license allows people to do! It's about moral hypocrisy, pure and simple. How can you claim to be free and open when you just basically told the original author that he/she needs to follow your rules in order to benefit from anything you add to it. It wasn't your project to begin with, but you're arrogant enough to fork the project and slap your own license on it, for what? Just because you don't like the BSD license?
The BSD developers got what they wanted. Their code is in use. The BSD license intentionally trades away protection from inclusion in differently licensed projects in return for the increased likelihood that the code can be used.
The GPL developers got what they wanted. Their code is protected from proprietization (And ONLY their code. Anyone can take the original BSD licensed code and do what they want with it).
There is no story here. The GPL and BSD licenses try to achieve different goals and both work as advertised. If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much "fun" and has earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well. Proprietary licenses usually require payment.
First - some disambiguating. There is obviously a real issue with the correct way to handle projects containing a mixture of GPL and BSD. It seems pretty clear to me that the only thing that entitles someone to re-distribute BSD code as part of a GPL product is the BSD license - and stripping off the BSD notice is clearly Just Plain Wrong (unless you're the original author). However, unlike the GPL, the text of the BSD license says nothing about derived works, linking, aggregation etc. so I'd be slightly sy
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 confuse two different things: one thing is the coder hacking the BSD source code and turning it something of his own and incorporating that under a binary. That is OK. The other thing is to strip the license. If you strip the licen
You confuse two different things: one thing is the coder hacking the BSD source code and turning it something of his own and incorporating that under a binary. That is OK.
The other thing is to strip the license.
I think the whole debate has got those two things mixed up - if GPL people are stripping the BSD license, then that is pretty clearly wrong (except in the previous thread on this issue it sounded as if the license had been stripped by the author - which, if true, is fair game).
The irony is that one "solution" would probably be to distribute the BSD parts in Linux as binary blobs... since if there's no source distribution, the issue goes away.
That's an interesting proposition but I wonder if it, in itself, does not create another problem: how do you work in a collaborative fashion with source code, on open source projects, if you are distributing binary blobs of BSD work? That's a contradiction, that's shooting yourself in the foot. Because the source code, visible to all, would h
The only hypocrisy here is that of the BSD people. If you don't want people to take your code and not give you back changes, guess what, don't license it under the BSD license.
It's simple: the major difference between the GPL and BSD licenses is that the GPL compels people who use your code (and redistribute) to give you back changes. If you want that to happen, use the GPL, not the BSD license. It's silly to license the code under the BSD license and then complain about the fact that people are following
In case you didn't know, you can't use code in Linux unless it's GPL, otherwise you would violate the GPL. It's not an issue of like and dislike.
This is exactly my point about moral hypocrisy. How is that free? The GPL isn't free. Once you incorporate even a tiny piece of GPL code into your project, it's tainted forever.
All I'm saying is let's call the GPL what it really is, just another restrictive license. Don't try and say the GPL is free and open, don't try to tell me the GPL is better than anything
Sure, the BSD developers may be hypocritical if they complain about someone taking their code without sharing back, but that doesn't exclude the GPL developers from also being hypocritical. The complaint about the hypocrisy of some GPL developers is very much valid. A GPL developer simply can't integrate ANY non-GPL code into his project unless he dual licenses it back. (and the dual licensing back may also be hypocritical depending on how fundamentalistically he follows GPL)
So how do you claim the moral high ground when you just took someone else's project and forked it so that they can't use it the way they originally intended?
Except that they can still use it as originally intended -- without the new stuff they didn't think of until someone else did.
How are the GPL guys forking stuff in a way that prevents the rest from using the code? And if you want to argue about the "originally intended" way I guess there is none? The BSD license is a permissive license, so my guess is that the reason to exist for the code is so it is used by the means the "user" wants to use it, and thus the original developers intended the rest of the world to do anything with the code.
This all seems to be more about the BSD people disliking the GPL and calling it a lock-in for
Simple solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the point of the story is the following:
1. Developer A writes some code for OpenBSD (or whatever)
2. Developer B says "that's cool, I wish Linux had that"
3. Developer B ports developer A's code to Linux
4. Developer B then starts improving on A's code
However, developer B doesn't want to release his changes under the BSD license, so the improved version goes out GPL-only. Developer A says "hey, wait, that sucks", because now he can't incorporate those changes back into OpenBSD, which does (I assume) have a policy that all code must be BSD-licensed.
One one hand, it's unfortunate, because OpenBSD loses out. On the other hand, the original author wrote the code knowing that someone could take it and not release changes (for instance, incorporate it into Windows or Mac OS X or SunOS or something like that), and this really isn't all that much different.
Re: (Score:2)
What should one be required to share? (Score:2)
1) Force those using our code to either give back or fork, and
2) Driving up the costs of code maintenance for those who
Re:A simple solution (Score:1)
1. Developer A writes some code for OpenBSD (or whatever)
2. Developer B says "that's cool, I wish Linux had that"
3. Developer B ports developer A's code to Linux
4. Developer B then starts improving on A's code
>>
I think it's ABCBA, or ABCAB -- writing the code, implementing it and code review means 3 parties.
>>However, developer B doesn't want to release his changes under the BSD license, so the improved version goes out GPL-only. Developer A says "hey, wait, that sucks", because now he c
Right, because (Score:2)
Note however that nothing prevents the OpenBSD driver developer from reading the code, thinking about it, coming back, and ading his own versions of the improvements. Or safer yet, askign someone *else* to read the code, provide a specification of the algorythm, an then reimplementing it since the algorythm itself is not subject to copyright protection (IANAL, but read the basic analysis in Gates v. Bando as to what is subject t
Re: (Score:1)
The *BSD people can't put GPL-only code in their kernel for a similar reason: the GPL code could be included by the end user but not distributed unless it followed the GPL, which some BSD distributors likely don't.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if that's what if that's what the BSD license allows people to do! It's about moral hypocrisy, pure and simple. How can you claim to be free and open when you just basically told the original author that he/she needs to follow your rules in order to benefit from anything you add to it. It wasn't your project to begin with, but you're arrogant enough to fork the project and slap your own license on it, for what? Just because you don't like the BSD license?
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL developers got what they wanted. Their code is protected from proprietization (And ONLY their code. Anyone can take the original BSD licensed code and do what they want with it).
There is no story here. The GPL and BSD licenses try to achieve different goals and both work as advertised. If you want an analogy: BSD is like the girl who sleeps with everybody. She gets a lot of sex and is invited to every party, but nobody respects her. GPL is like the girl who is selective about her partners. She doesn't have quite as much "fun" and has earned herself a little bit of a hard-to-get reputation, but the people who know her treat her well. Proprietary licenses usually require payment.
Re: (Score:2)
First - some disambiguating. There is obviously a real issue with the correct way to handle projects containing a mixture of GPL and BSD. It seems pretty clear to me that the only thing that entitles someone to re-distribute BSD code as part of a GPL product is the BSD license - and stripping off the BSD notice is clearly Just Plain Wrong (unless you're the original author). However, unlike the GPL, the text of the BSD license says nothing about derived works, linking, aggregation etc. so I'd be slightly sy
Re: (Score:2)
You confuse two different things: one thing is the coder hacking the BSD source code and turning it something of his own and incorporating that under a binary. That is OK.
The other thing is to strip the license. If you strip the licen
Re: (Score:2)
I think the whole debate has got those two things mixed up - if GPL people are stripping the BSD license, then that is pretty clearly wrong (except in the previous thread on this issue it sounded as if the license had been stripped by the author - which, if true, is fair game).
However, the fact
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting proposition but I wonder if it, in itself, does not create another problem: how do you work in a collaborative fashion with source code, on open source projects, if you are distributing binary blobs of BSD work? That's a contradiction, that's shooting yourself in the foot. Because the source code, visible to all, would h
Re: (Score:1)
It's simple: the major difference between the GPL and BSD licenses is that the GPL compels people who use your code (and redistribute) to give you back changes. If you want that to happen, use the GPL, not the BSD license. It's silly to license the code under the BSD license and then complain about the fact that people are following
Re: (Score:1)
This is exactly my point about moral hypocrisy. How is that free? The GPL isn't free. Once you incorporate even a tiny piece of GPL code into your project, it's tainted forever.
All I'm saying is let's call the GPL what it really is, just another restrictive license. Don't try and say the GPL is free and open, don't try to tell me the GPL is better than anything
Re: (Score:2)
The complaint about the hypocrisy of some GPL developers is very much valid. A GPL developer simply can't integrate ANY non-GPL code into his project unless he dual licenses it back. (and the dual licensing back may also be hypocritical depending on how fundamentalistically he follows GPL)
The problem is that as soon as a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This all seems to be more about the BSD people disliking the GPL and calling it a lock-in for