Dispelling BSD License Misconceptions 202
AlanS2002 writes "Groklaw is hosting an article by Brendan Scott which looks at the misconceptions surrounding the BSD license. From the article: 'We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary.'"
Fascinating (Score:3, Informative)
Only in Australia! (see article for details) (Score:4, Informative)
But, if true, it might mean that the BSD is indeed "viral" in Australia!
Wonder what Microsoft might have to do about all that old BSD networking code they use if this is true?
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhh.. a common misconception by idiots maybe.. (Score:5, Informative)
So they are not relicensing the BSD licensed components. They are providing those parts of the software under the license of which they were required and they are doing all they are required to use that code by providing the license in the documentation. The power of this is that the BSD license doesn't require the source code to be released to the user (and Brendan Scott, the author of the paper, recognises this in section 7.3) so the company can keep their modifications secret.
Re:Arcane (Score:3, Informative)
Close, but no cigar:
Re:Arcane (Score:3, Informative)
No your honor, I have not been drinking.
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, that's shockingly stupid. (Score:2, Informative)
Unofficial Word From Someone at UC Berkeley (Score:3, Informative)
The spirit of the license is exactly as people have interpreted it. It is not intended to limit or hinder people in any way. On the contrary, it is fully intended that their products be freely used, modified, and distributed. That's what academic research is all about. Berkeley has neither the time nor energy nor desire to chase people down. They just want credit for doing the work.
In addition, most of Berkeley's projects are government-funded. As such, they are not generally permitted to make any profit from the work. It has to be made public and people have to be allowed to extend it for their own purposes. The essence of public research is to benefit society as a whole, not just the corporate sector.
As for the question of third-party derivative works being used to make a profit, there is nothing stated in the license to prohibit such acts. Thus, it would seem to be legal. However, it could be argued that doing so is against the spirit of the license. Whether or not Berkeley could enforce that spirit in a court of law (assuming they even care to do so) is another matter.
If anybody wants an official statement, they should contact Berkeley's legal department.
Re:Fascinating (Score:4, Informative)
The BSD licence does not say that any modifications must also be released under the BSD licence. It does say that that a copy of the original licence, copyright notices, disclaimer, etc, must be including in any redistribution of the source or binary.
In fact, the BSD licence does not say anything about licensing any code—at all.
This line of argumentation is specious ... (Score:5, Informative)
It seems that this lawyer has not been trained in computer science because he is glossing over an important detail of the license to reach his incorrect conclusion. The BSD license says (using the author's numbering and my emphasis):
"2 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
3 * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
4 * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
5 * Neither the name of the [organization] nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission."
The license requires, per clauses 2-4, that a user reproduce (a) the copyright notice, (b) the list of conditions and (c) the disclaimer of the original license. The author reads this as requiring that the entire BSD license be reproduced in any redistrubtion or use of the code. But this is only true if (a), (b) and (c) comprise the entirety of the BSD license. I argue that they do not!
The key question is, "What is the 'list of conditions' that must be reproduced?" The author incorrectly claims that [2] is part of the list of conditions that must be maintained by a user, which would create a viral mechanism that this paper describes.
It is obvious from [2]'s use of the phrase "the following conditions" and the fact that [3, 4, 5] are preceded by asterisks and use the phrase "this list of conditions" that [2] is not intended to be part of the list of conditions. The list of conditions only consists of [3, 4, 5]. Therefore, redistributors / users are not required to maintain the original grant of the license [2] in their use or redistribution of the code.
The flaw in the author's argument is that he is incorrectly including the original grant of the license [2] into the list of conditions [3, 4, 5]. The license truly only requires that users reproduce clauses [1, 3, 4, 5, 6] of the BSD license in their redistrubtions or use.
Re:Fascinating (Score:3, Informative)
According to Microsoft, this is no longer true. BSD code were only used earlier to get TCP/IP functionality into Windows quickly when it became obvious that Internet (and not Microsoft Network, a.k.a. MSN) would be the next "big thing"
But of course the source isn't available , so we can't verify this claim.
Re:It's Funny. Laugh. (Score:1, Informative)
*If* the author of any new code using parts of BSD code in it decides to release code rather than just a binary, it is their responsibility to indicate that *parts* of the code fall under the BSD license and include the attribution/disclaimer accordingly. It is also their responsibility to state any more restrictive license they care to use for the code. You must abide by their license and can't ignore it simply because BSD code is included. I don't think you will find a court that agrees with you that you can ignore parts you don't like. You are free to try of course, it's your lawyer bill.
The only question is: If the BSD license text is distributed with a program, does it apply to the whole program?
There will likely be a license the program is presented to you as licensed under. There will also be a file indicating some code is contained inside with the BSD attribution/disclaimer. The software author should make it clear that this is for only part of the code. Once again, I don't think there is any legitimate question of the BSD license applying to a program licensed under another license, but you are free to waste the courts time and pay a lawyer a lot of money for nothing if you want.
Re:The only way this will be tested... (Score:3, Informative)
That's effectively what Berkeley did when AT&T sued them over the release of the BSD Unix source code - they countered by pointing out that AT&T had stripped BSD copyright headers from a number of files included in System V. Berkeley pointed out that AT&T were welcome to restribute their code as a binary only, commercial product, but that the copyright stripping in the separately licensed source release contravened the BSD license.