Berkeley removes Advertising Clause 310
Matthew N. Dodd was the first to write with the news that UC-Berkeley has changed the *BSD license. Effective immediatly, the 3rd clause, that which requires acknowledgement of UCB in all advertising is null and void. Click below to read the letter from UCB.
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley "
Re:Nope. (Score:1)
Hopefully someone will moderate it up, but the level of sophistication with regard to satire seems to be low already and dropping fast around here..
Daniel
"university of california berkeley" (Score:1)
Re:We aren't that stupid (Score:1)
It doesn't matter much to me what people claim about their code if they can't prove it. If they can, more power to them. If they're nice people, they'll say what they did, if not, it can probably be figured out.
(Anyway, everyone with a brain knows NetBSD [netbsd.org] is better than FreeBSD [freebsd.org] and BSDOS [bsdi.com] put together.
(... please observe the smiley, kiddies.)
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:1)
(err, i say freebsd but this applies to all OSes that come from BSD)
Nice save.
*BSD -> GPL ? (Score:1)
Morally bereft ./'ers (Score:1)
Even if one could GPL BSD, which you couldn't, it doesn't mean one should do it, and throw ethics out the window. To do so would be showing an utter lack respect for the creators of the software.
-lx
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:3)
The point: the GPL basically states that you have certain rights. The same rights, more or less, as those granted with the BSD license. The GPL goes further, however, by stating that you must give everyone else the same rights you have, and consequently that they must give everyone else those same rights. BSD doesn't do this, and it's BSD's only critical flaw. When I get a piece of BSD software, I have certain rights. However, because of BSD's license, I can theoretically deny those same rights to other people. This isn't a Good Thing at all.
IF GNU/Linux, THEN Linux/HURD (Score:1)
He constantly insists on Linux being called GNU/Linux to get some of the respect for his work he undoubtedly deserves - and in my opinion often gets - but doesnt perceive to receive (pardon my wording, its kinda late and Im not a native speaker...)
Doing so, he makes the free software world less free by denying me the right to freely call software what I want to call it, and what seemingly most people inside and outside the free software world have agreed to call it.
Besides, if we apply his own reasoning (it includes a lotta code from us) to his own pet, namely the too-little-too-late HURD, we have to call it Linux/HURD - next to all of the code for hardware drivers in the HURD has been taken from the respective linux-drivers, as a Debian GNU/HURD developer explained to me the other day...
Re:Yeah.. BSD protects me!!! (Score:1)
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:1)
Maybe... But, you could look at it this way: You might think you are denying someone else these all-important rights, but in reality, it would only apply to your modifications.
Before anyone goes ballistic, I understand that the license doesn't say this in any way. However, as long as the original source is still around, anyone can grab the original and have the same rights you had/have. The only exception: your modifications.
Just because you can fork off a new BSD derivative and deny people access to the source code doesn't mean people have to use it. There will have to be a good reason (new features, improvements, etc.) for people to choose it. If people are paying for BSDI when a free version is available, that's their choice. (Besides, how much is Red Hat worth today? Don't think they didn't "profit from" somebody's work. They may "give back to the community", but I haven't seen millions of dollars or millions of dollars worth of code coming from there.)
If you're troubled about Windows, Mac, Solaris, etc., don't think they're doing so well just because a little BSD code got in there. Though BSD folks might think so. ;) Realistically, a lot of work has gone into these operating systems, and they offer different features than xBSD.
No, Not Wonderful! (Score:1)
This is the one thing I hate about Linux and its groupies. So many greedy, snotty, self-rightous #&@$! "Free - forever." Have you actually *read* the GPL? Maybe I've always had a different definition for freedom, maybe that's why ESR had to make a witty statement to help define what freedom means in the GPL. Who knows.. its Orwellian. "Freedom is Slavery."
And before I get bogged with hateful messages, some script kiddy trying to send me a flash email, etc, let me say one thing. I do know people who are not like what I despise (above) who favor Linux, I am on two LUGs, I even tried to get to LinuxWorld, and I have multiple (4) distributions of Linux. I also have over a dozen Linux books. But I also prefer *BSD's culture, no matter what ESR and RMS like to demean it as. There, kill me. You zealots are going to be the ones who make 1984 a reality.
WOW (Score:1)
Re:Gimme a break. (Score:1)
BSD is a proven well head for Sun, HP, Microsoft, SCO, and every other software vendor. You code BSD, they build products using it. BSD was the conduit for goverment funded software research. Fine.
I am not a "blind follower" of the GPL. I, and other GPL contributers are capitalists in every sense of the word. They've figured out there is zero potential return on their investment under BSD. They know they can't compete on the basis of selling their software product for cash. So, the GPL allows them to sell their software product for profit in the form of services. They get bug fixes, enhancements, and noteriaty in return for their investment.
Under a capitalistic system, people who perform any service without maximizing their potential return are failures, by definition. Users of the GPL reviewed their options, and took an action they believe maximized their return.
So, what economic system do you work under that associates bright thinking with giving your profitable work away for a guarenteed zero return?
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? (Score:2)
Re:Ungrateful lout! (Score:1)
I'm not sure if I understand you, but you seem to be saying that people who BSDL their code really don't want other people to take advantage of it with a less free license. But this contradicts several of the assertions made by BSDL advocates in this forum that specifically say they don't mind if this happens.
For the record I have absolutely nothing against the BSD license. What irritates me is people who advocate the BSDL as being "more free" on the one hand, and then turn around and go ape-shit when someone wants to include BSD code in a GPL program.
I've actually seen one person suggest that a clause be added to the BSD license that specificly prohibits use in GPL code! Hey pal, you've just reinvented the GPL, moron.
Re:I find it interesting (Score:3)
RMS requested that people acknowledge their operating systems as being essentially the GNU OS with a Linux kernel, hence "GNU/Linux" systems. He did not legally mandate that this be done.
The BSD license, on the other hand, legally mandated that Berkeley be credited in all advertising materials. Even your 3-line classified ad had to waste one of the lines crediting Berkeley.
The difference should be obvious.
Finally, the *Perfect* license! (Score:2)
Re:This is an EASY question (Score:1)
Re:Out of context (Score:1)
(yeah, yeah, yeah.. so at one point I watched star trek rather then the useless dribble usually on. shoot me.)
Re:*BSD -> GPL ? (Score:2)
UCB has only removed demands for credit to the University of California. Other people who have added code to BSD have inserted demands for credit to them, and for such code, the advertising clause is still in effect.
For code that only demands credit to Berkeley, the conflict is gone and it can now be freely linked to GPL code.
BFD (Score:1)
Confused (was Re:Nope.) (Score:1)
You blatantly confuse terms.
Ummm, you seem to be confusing everything he said including his unmistakable sarcasm...
Anonymous Coward wrote:
being Liberals (== socialists == Communists == Stalinists)...
chris
Heyhey... (Score:2)
2. Any Linux distribution I've seen is the GNU system with some BSD tools and a Linux kernel. It's certainly not inappropriate to call it GNU/Linux.
3. The BSD tools are a minimal part of the system, though -- if you put the GNU tools on a FreeBSD system, you don't get GNU/FreeBSD -- it works the other way around, too.
4. This also means that if someone took FreeBSD and replaced only the kernel with Linux, you could legitimately call it BSD/Linux. (and probably ought to, to avoid confusion!)
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org [berlin-consortium.org]
Re:This change is irrelevant. (Score:1)
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:1)
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
If the additions are useful and they won't give them to us, someone will duplicate it in a free form. However, if the proprietary group couldn't have made the additions proprietary in the first place, don't think they would naturally have written them and given them away. The idea might have been lost for good. Let them make want they want. They have an economic incentive to try things. The things that work eventually make it into free source.
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
- mkleehammer
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:1)
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
- mkleehammer
Re:Non-Windows restrictions (Score:1)
The most free license gets even more free! (Score:1)
As for people's fears that some evil company will take BSDL code and proprietarize/commercialize it, and for their assertions that GPL prevents that, bah! If _I_ were an evil software company, I wouldn't *care* whether the code I stole was GPL'ed or QJX'ed or whatever. I would just steal it and meld it with my own code, with only a few trustworthy programmers having to know.
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:1)
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:1)
Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.
More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.
The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.
To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?
From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.
Re:This is what the GPL should be (Score:1)
You won't get argument from me that someone shouldn't modify the PNG library, making it 10x faster or some such nonsense, then claim it as their own and not redistribute their changes. But you will get arguments from me when you claim that my 100k line program must be GPLd if I use 'readline'. Its not that the software must be kept free that people usually argue with the GPL, but that it takes away the right you have to do what you want with your OWN software, independant of the GPLd code.
Re:He said BSD license, not BSD like. (Score:1)
(That's like saying without that clause in the GPL that any un-versionfied program can be put under any version the user see's fit, any older version isn't the GPL. Actually, it wouldn't matter if that clause was there or not. We agree, this was the GPL, this is the GPL. This "new" GPL is also the GPL. Different versions. Call this BSD v1.1 if you'd like. Its still BSD.)
Re:Now why would you want to do that? (Score:1)
Ask youself. What's more productive. One piece of software that does a job adaquately but can never be recycled, or code that can be. Every real hacker, and eventually Linus, said its better to steal code then re-write it. Oh, and what would you feel more comfortable with, if Microsoft made their own networking stack or used BSD's? BSD users never complained, they pointed it as how good their code was. GPL people seem to call it stealling, but then do the same. Its hypocritical. It could be legal, but if you set your morals, someday bother to live by them.
Star Wars reference (Score:1)
On a side note, would it be possible to create a Dual Standard license? Essentially, you release the same code under two license options. Any changes that get back to you get issued again under both.
After all, different header comments might even make it different source code. Don't you think?
If those changes originate with the author, people who won't use GPL for fear of contamination can use it. Most of them probably will give back changes. Sure, not all...
People who won't use anything not GPL for fear of someone stealing their toys would have the same thing.
The trick would be in ammending a license somewhere to allow the original author of Code A to use changes made to their code under the second, non-GPL license. It's a bit of a special case, but I think it has a lot of potential for growth.
Re:The unscrupulous types can sue you anyway (Score:2)
Re:GPL doesn't force you do to anything (Score:1)
So you were a *DOS* share/crippleware programmer. Big deal. The GPL is becoming more popular because people depise the BSD licence. The fact that SGI choose the GPL over the BSD licence to release their code under is proof that it's the BSD license that's seriously broken despite what idiots like yourself claim. In fact I really suspect that's the real reason the illusion of change was made in the BSD license agreement.
Retroactive relicensing (Score:1)
HOWEVER, this does not prevent them from granting blanket permission to anyone to use UC Berkeley-Copyrighted code under the old license (this does not include things such as Apache for example but would affect things such as ash, the BSD /bin/sh) under the new one.
AFAIK, the FreeBSD project at least is already using a 3-clause BSD license for new code, but they could not previously grant use of the original BSD code under those terms---not that it really matters to them from a legal standpoint, but the advertising clause IS somewhat inconvenient and ineffectual IMO. Where this change REALLY benefits anyone (and the reason Richard Stallman was pushing for it) is in terms of GPL compatibility. The new BSD license is compatible with the GPL. This means libreadline linked bash, among other things.
Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? (Score:1)
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Re:A license is not a contract (Score:2)
Re:Morally bereft ./'ers (Score:2)
This remark makes no sense whatsoever. The BSD license already permits extensions to be totally proprietary. Why do BSD advocates care if someone makes an extension or fork off the BSD tree and GPLs it, when they don't object to someone who makes a fork off the tree that is totally proprietary?
It's really strange. BSDers politely request people to give their changes back, but if they choose not to (e.g. put the code into Solaris or some such) they don't object. But they scream if someone takes the same code and puts it into a GPL program. This is stupid. Even if BSD people can't use the code directly, they can study it for ideas, which is something that they can't do with proprietary extensions. (And yes, BSD snobs, BSD kernel developers have learned a considerable amount from work that first appeared in the Linux space, and of course considerable knowledge has flowed the other way as well).
If someone takes a BSD distribution and slaps the GPL on it, the original BSD distribution is still available. Note that RMS does not advocate doing things like this; while he prefers copyleft, he thinks that cooperation with the maintainers of non-copylefted free software and avoiding forks is more important. But if someone else does it, it really doesn't matter.
Re:GPL is just as valid as a proprietary license (Score:1)
Re:Can't change existing licenses (Score:1)
But I don't think you're correct. I believe that you can change an existing license, but if your rights as a licensee are diminished by a change and the license didn't explicitly allow for changes to it, you are not bound by any changes that diminish your rights.
With this change, I don't think anyone can argue that their rights were diminished (barred crazy judges) so this is effectively a change to the license.
Perhaps a real lawyer can give a more definitive word on this.
EJB
Re:Of course not (Score:1)
Re:Ungrateful lout! (Score:3)
The BSD license permits someone to add new code to existing BSD code, and then to add a new license, as long as the original notice is kept. If you think that it is wrong for someone to use this permission, it follows that you think BSD licensing is wrong.
BSDers don't care at all if the license on the derivative work says "All rights reserved", no copying or distribution, pay thousands of dollars, go to jail if you break it. But they scream, scream, scream if the new license says "GPL". Why is this?
Please note: I don't want to change your sacred license. I got my degree at Berkeley, and I produced vast amounts of free software with a license just like what BSD is now (we never had the advertising clause). But if someone made a derivative work of my code and put the GPL on it, I wouldn't object in any way.
IT IS ILLEGAL TO GPL BSDL CODE (Score:2)
BTW, most of this is applicable to all licenses, including the GPL.
Besides being morally repugnant (the author released the code under that license for a reason), it is illegal for anyone other than the author(s) of a piece of code or binary to alter a license in ANY WAY (including Microsoft, SUN, BSDI, etc.).
The main problem with the arguments of the proponents of GPLing BSDL source is that they assume a license completely ignores any previous rights given by copyright law. They assume that if it isn't explicitly stated in the license, a right is forfeit. It isn't. In fact, the opposite is true. Part (d) of section 201, Title 17 of the United States Code deals with the transfer of copyright rights and reads:
"(d) TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivi-sion of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title."
There is nothing special about a license. It is simply a temporary grant of the rights entitled by a copyright holder. A licensee only gets the rights explicitly specified in the license.
In fact, a license CANNOT give you the right to change the license. That is a right of ownership of the copyright, and as stated in Section 101, Title 17, USC, the definition of a "transfer of copyright ownership" excludes nonexclusive licenses (which software licenses are, by definition). So if a license gave you the right, it wouldn't be legally binding, and any subsequent sub-licensing would likewise be legally invalid. This is an area that I would be interested in seeing how the courts have defined.
Furthermore, a person cannot GPL changes or additions made to BSDL code. Those are considered derivative works, and, as granted in subsection (c) of section 106, Title 17, USC, they are the exclusive right of the copyright owner. So, those would have to be BSDL, as well. The only way someone could GPL any BSDL code is if they created an entirely new work (not derivative) and their use of BSDL'd code passed the fair use test [benedict.com].
As an aside, derivative works aren't well defined in the law (what happens to derivative works not created by the author, for example), so it would be interesting to see how the courts have defined this area. Also, code changes are a special case and could probably be further defined. Based on my interpretation of the law, changes made to either BSDL or GPL code would be copyrighted by the original author of the code, which seems excessive. (Anybody out there know how the courts have ruled?)
Whatever your feelings on GPL and BSDL, I think everyone can agree they represent very different philosophies for "free" software. To try to change the license of an author's code, even if it wasn't illegal, is wrong. The author made a choice, one that should be respected. By trying to change the license, a person is trying to take away an author's right to make that choice. That is why BSD people get so upset when someone tries to GPL BSDL code, for those of you that had to ask.
Responses are welcome. I am certainly not an authority on the subject, I just did a little research. I am especially interested in the case law, which I know absolutely nothing about. If any one is aware of how copyright law has been interpreted by the courts and how that might apply to this situation, I would love to hear from you.
If you are interested in checking my research or just learning more about copyright law (it is very interesting stuff), the official site [loc.gov] is at the Library of Congress [loc.gov].
Nathan "n8" Florea
n8_f@uswest.net
Links:
U.S. Copyright Law PDF [loc.gov]
Section 201, Title 17, USC PDF [loc.gov]
Section 101, Title 17, USC PDF [loc.gov]
Section 106, Title 17, USC PDF [loc.gov]
U. S. Copyright Office [loc.gov]
Library of Congress [loc.gov]
The Fair Use Test [benedict.com]
Re:GPL doesn't force you do to anything (Score:1)
I don't suppose it's entered your tiny little 4004 of a brain that it's within the realm of possiblity that people can object to the GPV for reasons of principle, has it?
As it happens, I have never written a piece of shareware. What software I have written and released was either released under the same terms as the software of which it was a modification (as in, for example, my adaptation of the KA9Q TCP/IP suite to work with the Data General One laptop's nonstandard serial hardware), or else under a BSDish license (do as you like with it, just don't claim it as your own).
You'll get a lot farther along in this world if you'll quit assuming the worst of others' motives on exactly zero evidence.
The fact that SGI choose the GPL over the BSD licence to release their code under is proof that it's the BSD license that's seriously broken despite what idiots like yourself claim.
I suspect the value judgment you're claiming never entered anyone's mind at SGI; rather, the lawyers took one look at the situation and decided that using any other license than the GPV for code to be integrated into Linux created a legal minefield they'd much rather stay away from. That's the lawyerly thing to do.
--
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:2)
What on earth are you talking about? I get the source on the CD, I can change it, I can submit it, I can get it accepted, or I can fork the tree and distribute the changed version as my own. How is this closed at all? Linus doesn't take every last kernel hack everyone submits to him, yunno. Sometimes his right-hand-man Alan Cox has to maintain a forked version for months.
Re:Point please? (Score:2)
The phrase "your public domain code" is an oxymoron. No one owns PD code, and no one *can* claim ownership of PD code. You can stick a wrapper around PD code and call it your own, but you can't prevent anyone else from using the original PD code.
Re:Point please? (Score:1)
Whatever happened to: (Score:2)
(I'm gonna kill my 2 score aren't I?)
So what *IS* the point of the BSDL, then? (Score:1)
You've done very good research, but it seems to me that other than the GPL's requirements that source be made available, there's not too much difference between the GPL and the BSDL -- if BSDL'd code CAN'T be made proprietary, I fail to see the charm of a license that once bragged about being "truly free" because licensed software could be made non-free. Even if source isn't distributed, anyone can decompile, modify, and re-distribute a BSD's program.. the GPL just goes the extra inch and requires that source be distributed.
Hardly grounds for a holy war!!
Re:So what *IS* the point of the BSDL, then? (Score:1)
"I had always heard...that BSD[L] allows BSD[L]'d code to become non-free."
That wouldn't make sense. If BSDL allowed code to become "non-free", then a company could just take all of the FreeBSD source, make it "non-free" (I assume by copyrighting it), and charge everybody using it $100 (or whatever they wanted). The BSDL allows BDSL'd code to be used with non-free (hereafter called proprietary) software, NOT "become non-free."
"Hardly grounds for a holy war!!"
I agree. However, the BSDL and GPL represent very different philosophies. The GPL protects software freedom by taking away programmer freedom (I can explain this later if you'd like; I'm running a little late), while the BSDL is less restrictive.
If you still have questions or seek further explanations, just let me know.
Cheers,
n8
Re:IF GNU/Linux, THEN Linux/HURD (Score:1)
I think you're delusional. No one is denying any right to you. RMS thinks it is fair that you or anyone else give the GNU project credit for the work they put into making Linux a success. I think they couldn't be more right, and I think you're being childish for making it into a problem.
RMS didn't say he would force anyone to do it.
Somehow I think you have a problem with giving him credit for his work because you don't believe in his ideas. Now I think _that_ is being a hippocrite.
EJB
Oh.... (Score:1)
anyway, I could still "add" a GPL like licens, if I wanted to...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:So what *IS* the point of the BSDL, then? (Score:1)
I *DIDN'T* mean that someone could take a BSD'd program or its source code, copyright it, and then exert any control over EXISTING copies of that software or source code created or distributed by other people, I meant that according to my understanding of the BSDL, someone COULD take a copy of of BSDL'd source code, compile it, modify it or not, and then distribute it under ANY terms they like, free or otherwise, as long as those terms comply with the remaining restrictions of the BSD License.
Here's what I think it comes down to: if Faceless Corporation can download the source to a BSDL'd program called Foo, and they're able to incorporate it into a program called Faceless Foo and say "You can't use this program unless you give us money and comply with the FacelessCo EULA," why can't a GPL advocate, let's call him Dick Stillman, release a new version, let's call it KNUFoo, and say "You can't use this program unless you comply with the terms of the GPL?"
It does seem like a small case of sour grapes on the part of BSD folks when they acknowledge that that BSDL'd code can be incorporated into commercial software, but cry foul when Dick Stillman wants to incorporate it into another form of free software.
I must be missing something here... do Faceless Co. and Dick Stillman BOTH have the right to do what the want, or does only one, or do neither?
If neither of them do, then how does the GPL restrict programmers any more than the BSDL does?
Thanks for your help on this.
Re:Now why would you want to do that? (Score:2)
What if someone found a hidden but valid loophole in the GPL that allowed them release all of Debian under BSD?. You would be angry, livid, beside yourself, foaming at the mouth, losing bladder control, and in general having violent conniption fits. To paraphrase Tolkien, "Those having respect for living authors will use their license and no other."
Re:BSD licensed code in Windows. & Linux, too! (Score:1)
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of California.
CHeers!
http://www.bombcar.com It's where it is at.
Re:Now why would you want to do that? (Score:1)
For the same reasons you use the GPL in the first place!
What can you not do with the GPL that you can with the BSD? You can't not give someone the source to the program if they ask for it and you have given them the compiled form.
Now, a better question: Why would anyone want to use the BSD license for their code instead of the GPL? So other people can make changes, and not give them back?
It just doesn't make sense.
Re:Was RMS's bitch. Re:WOW (Score:1)
If you believe in the principles of the FSF, I think you'll agree with me that the GPL is better.
If you want to write software that anyone can use for any purpose including making it un-free, etc. wihtout you having to worry over it a bit, then the BSD is now your license of choice.
If you're a bad-ass software company waiting to rip off the work of a bunch of smart kids with too much time on their hands, selling it, keeping the modified source secret and claiming you wrote the software yourself, I suppose you'd prefer the BSD too.
Then there's the practical part. It seems to me that the open source projects that attract most people, are most dynamic and most successful (linux kernel, linux utilities, gnome, gcc, gimp, etc. etc. [see www.fsf.org]) are GPL-based.
EJB
Re:Morally bereft ./'ers (Score:2)
After years of proclaiming the inherent righteousness of the GPL since it won't allow licensing changes, the stallmanistas now want to do unto others what they don't want others to do unto them. Utter hypocracy.
Re:Now why would you want to do that? (Score:1)
It is not like the GPL, where people expect that their irc clients will be used by Big Baddy folks like Microsoft. A lot of the people who wrote in support of the BSD licence (or maybe just one AC, i don't remember), said they would love a Big Baddy took their code and made a better product.
Re:The most free license gets even more free! (Score:1)
As for people's fears that some evil company will take BSDL code and proprietarize/commercialize it, and for their assertions that GPL prevents that, bah! If _I_ were an evil software company, I wouldn't *care* whether the code I stole was GPL'ed or QJX'ed or whatever. I would just steal it and meld it with my own code, with only a few trustworthy programmers having to know.
Why will you trust them if they have perfect material to blackmail you?
licenses shlicenses (Score:1)
Re:Now why would you want to do that? (Score:1)
There are a great many "free" software licenses (not to mention the roll-your-own variety) which do slap restrictions on what restrictions you can place on redistribution of code you've modified. BSD is not one of them, as it takes the freedom of the recipient's use of thus-licensed software one step closer to being absolute.
While I don't see it as an issue of respect, as you seem to, I do believe this: If, given the myriad of prefab licensing options available and the option of creating your own you are yet unable to devine a set of terms which fits your personal taste, you henceforth command precisely zero respect in such matters.
Re:Morally bereft ./'ers (Score:1)
Now do you see why Berkeley is dumping the restriction?
Re:IF GNU/Linux, THEN Linux/HURD (Score:1)
thanks for your answer.
With regard to your RMS quotes (which can be read at the FSF' s website, among other interesting stuff), I know the reasoning behind it. There can of course be no doubt that Linux is first and foremost a kernel, but it is not an uncommon practice to name an operating system like the kernel, even in the situation of commercial OSs, where a lot of tools and utilitys may have been bought from other companies. As I wrote above, this seems to be a naming convention a vast majority of people seem to have agreed upon in the case of BlueSocks.
While I have no intention whatsoever to deny the importance of the GNU software included in the distros, I also see that a lot of the system programs neither come from the GNU project nor have been released under the GPL (or LGPL). I just dont see why in such a mixed system we should credit GNU, with all its merits, more than BSD, for example. And I agree - it would be foolish to include all the contributing projects or licenses used in the name, so why make an exception for GNU?
One more point: you said that RMS isn't denying me anything. This is true in his writings, but as I wrote in my second posting above, his practical behaviour, in particular towards journalists, is quite different...
Re:Ungrateful lout! (Score:2)
Imagine that I have a swimming pool. I allow everyone in the nieghborhood to use my pool at any time. I even keep my back gate unlocked so they can. You, on the other hand, continually berate and chastise me for my free-thinking ways. You warn me that some bum will spread disease in my pool, that kids will urinate in it, and the city council will fine me for not having a lock on the gate. Everytime I see you, you are wagging your finger at me calling me stupid and ignorant. What else am I supposed to think but "hypocrite" when you come use my pool?
Can't change existing licenses (Score:4)
Re:This DID happen with GPL'd code once (Score:2)
True, but in that case, the FSF owned the copyright to the entire program, and hence were free to offer new license terms as they saw fit.
Good news for everybody. (Score:2)
I wonder who convinced them to change it? I know RMS was pushing for it:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
GPL-compatible? (Score:2)
Many, including Richard Stallman, have criticized the BSD license due to its demand for credit in advertising. Since this is the only restriction on further redistribution, the BSDs are the only freely re-distributable operating systems in common use. However, due to the advertising clause, FreeBSD cannot simply tack the GPL onto the existing license. The GPL prohibits this. Much new development removes the advertising clause of the copyright statement.
So, now that the advertising clause is gone, does this mean that FreeBSD can simply tack the GPL onto the existing license?
However... (Score:3)
...it is still considered good manners to attribute your sources.
Re:Can't change existing licenses (Score:2)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Re:I find it interesting (Score:2)
how old is this letter? (Score:2)
B.
Re:Is this a good thing or a bad thing? (Score:5)
* 3a. No one shall include any software code
* written by U.C. Berkely or any of its
* contributors in any software program
* intended to be used primarily for evil
* purposes including but not limited
* to the wearing out of RGB monitors
* through the excessive illumination of blue
* phosphor dots.
Re:Retroactive / other licensors (Score:2)
See my earlier comment. All UCB are doing (in fact, all they can do) is offering to relicense the code on which they own the copyright under the new terms. Although many programs use the BSD license, UCB don't own copyright on most of them, and hence have no say in future licensing terms.
Individuals authors will have to rerelease the source under the new license terms (or offer to relicense existing source under the new terms). No doubt some will do so, and some will not -- either because they want the advertising clause present (and they have every right to do so), or because they don't know or don't care about it.
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:2)
Point please? (Score:3)
Re:Point please? (Score:2)
I, for one, don't have any particular axe to grind. I like the BSD license, but I generally prefer the GPL license, because it discourages forking and keeps source code open.
BSD license is more favorable (at least under certain circumstances) to software developers. GPL license is more favorable to software users.
Pick the one you like. If something is released under a license/policy you don't like, don't use it. That's what I do, and is why I generally avoid closed-source software.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Neet (Score:2)
Ugh. (Score:2)
I'm a rabid GPL advocate and all, but the reprocussions of this I'm seeing down the road just make me ill...
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org [berlin-consortium.org]
BSD licensed code in Windows. (Score:2)
C:\WINDOWS>strings ftp.exe|grep Regents
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS>
Proof enough?
(Anyone with dual-boot machine can check it themselves by mounting the Windows partition and doing the strings thing from Linux.)
Re:This is what the GPL should be (Score:3)
I find it interesting (Score:3)
Re:Point please? (Score:2)
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. 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.
You still have to acknowledge UCB's copyright when you distribute the code in source or binary form, it just no longer has to be acknowleged in advertising.
When a piece of code is in the public domain, you do not have to acknowledge any copyright (because there is none).
--
Re:We aren't that stupid (Score:2)
I don't want to prevent this. I want my code to
be free. Hence, I would use the BSD/X license.
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Yeah.. BSD protects me!!! (Score:2)
Re:Point please? (Score:2)
* Retain the copyright and the copyright notice
* Retain the BSD license
* Binary distributions must include the copyright notice
It also points out that the organization is not giving rights to use their name in product endorcements without separate permissions.
Since the GPL allows for the copyright notice restriction, this looks like it makes BSD completely GPL compatible, YAY!
----
Re:GPL still better because it propagates itself (Score:2)
Non-free software "controls" no one. And any curtailing it does is similar to the curtailing inherent in the GPL, Artistic, MPL, QPL, etc. Both have terms limiting how you can redistribute the software. Even the GPL has clauses limiting what an end "user" can or can't use (a GPL'd library has severe restrictions on its intended end user).
Explain how not writing code under the GPL can be legally used against you? As long as you follow all copyright laws (whether copyleft or not) and avoid software patents, how can any swarming unscrupulous corporate type do anything at all to you?
Forget the talk about *BSD w/ GPL (Score:2)
First, I'm not a Win9x, NT, *BSD, Linux, Mac, etc. user...
Actually, I run BeOS, Linux AND FreeBSD, so I'm not really biased.
Something a lot of people here seem to be saying is about appending the GPL onto *BSD. You people must get it through your heads, GPL is not the saving grace. Most, if not all, *BSD users that I know (self somewhat included) detest the GPL, because of it's politics. It's a software license for chrissakes, not a religion.
This is not intended as flamebait nor to attack, simply to point out that don't see it how a lot of BSD people do - they use FreeBSD because they don't want GPL, not because GPL doesn't want them.
Oh, and umm, hi mom!
Clue Stick comin' at ya (Score:2)
The second point is a default moderation. It comes as a result of having several posts moderated up over time. The poster becomes a favored poster because they have a history of saying things worthwhile.
It's still possible for people with default 2's to post flamebait or trolls. We all have days where we get a little surly. If it continues, their default score will eventually be averaged down. It's also possible to log in and flame yourself into a default 0.
Check out rde's user page [slashdot.org]. Most of the time, rde has something worthwhile to say. Personally, I think (s)he was right on with the original post -- the BSD vs. GPL license war is one of the most time-wasting activities I've ever seen. I'm also tired of seeing BSD articles turn into 400-comment ASCII battles around here.
But I'm obviously a hypocrite since I'm posting on slashdot instead of coding right now.
Re:RMS speaketh (Score:2)
----
Re:GPL-compatible? (Score:2)
NO. It doesn't mean that. It is not desirable for FreeBSD to change to the GPL, and that will never happen. Trust me on this. And you can't just tack on the license. It just doesn't work that way. Berkeley still owns the copyright to many files so FreeBSD could not change things like that. If any of the Linux people think they can just "tack the GPL on" to the file, they are flat wrong, plain and simple. Licensing terms are controlled exclusively by the copyright holder.
Many people use FreeBSD specifically because it has a proprietary friendly license. One company I know if actively modifies the kernel to get the best performance they can out of their video hardware. And the do not want to make all of those changes available. Many aren't relevant to a general purpose OS, and some document interfaces to their priorietary system. The GPL has to much ambiguity to base a business plan on. Linus Torvalds says it means one think while RMS says it means another.
No. FreeBSD will never be GPL'd.
Warner Losh
imp@freebsd.org
Re:Ungrateful lout! (Score:2)
The author of a BSD source code can rerelease it at any time under any license he wishes. But because he doesn't, you would take his code and slap a different license on it against his wishes (not that you legally could). Ungrateful greedy lout!
Re:Point please? (Score:2)
microsoft can continue to steal code and now they have BSD's permission to not even acknowledge who they were stealing code
from?
First of all, no one is stealing any code from anyone. BSD is giving their code away.
Second of all this is NOT retroactive, and Microsoft has written it's TCP/IP stack/Utilities long ago, so the old license still stands. Microsoft cant say that 4.3bsd (or 4.4) code is now theirs, it's not, it never was, it never will be. The old license says clearly they must acknowledge UCB and if they want to be legal they will continue to do so.
-Rich
Re:Point please? (Score:2)
It's spelled G-P-L. Please grow up.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:Point please? (Score:3)
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Essentially, you must keep the license. Unlike the GPL, you can add restrictions to the license, which many companies have done (eg. BSDI, Sun, Microsoft). Unlike the older BSD license, it appears (but I am not a lawyer) to not have any restrictions incompatible with the GPL license, so I think you can add the GPL to the new BSD license. It is cumulative licensing, not relicensing.
I am not a lawyer, does anyone with real legal credentials (and more ambition to read and think than the AC I'm replying to here) want to take a stab at this?
----
Re:Out of context (Score:2)
Now that BSD development is fully open for GPL/GNU participation, I see that no one is advocating this. No one. Instead I see lots of posts advocating the opposite, the taking of BSD code for GPL/GNU purposes. The whole idea of Free Software is to keep it in the community, and now I see people wanting to expatriate code. I see posts on the order of "now we can take it and make it ours." All of you would be pissing nails if someone suggested BSDing GPL/GNU code. But in advocating GPLing BSD code, you are among the worst of hypocrits.
No one in the BSD camp worries if you take some code here or there for your own use. In fact, it's encouraged. Take several application if you want and come back for more. But the BSD offer of free love was interpreted by you as rape. And just like a despicable rapist, your reply when caught is "but she really wanted it, look at how she's dressed."
Licenses vs Copyrights (Score:5)
A software license defines restrictions you wish to place on the use of your software/code. It is a legally binding agreement between the copyright holder and the user. These restrictions can not be overridden by sublicensing the code unless permission is explicitly given.
A copyright notice defines ownership of the code. You do not need to place a copyright notice in your work to hold the copyright. The second you write it (in the US), it is protected under copyright law unless you explicitly release it to the public domain.
Code which is in the "public domain" has no copyright. You used to see people who would release code to the public domain with restrictions, however in the US "public domain" means public domain, so the restrictions won't hold up.
Unless explicitly forbidden by a license, you can sublicense code under whatever terms you wish. The terms of the new license can not conflict with the old license (sublicense, not relicense).
This allowed people such as Microsoft to take BSD code and place it under MS EULA. The EULA does not place any restrictions to make it incompatible with the original BSD license.
That said, it is completely legal to sublicense BSD source code as GPL as long as the GPL does not conflict with the BSD license, which, by the looks of it, it doesn't.
Here are some URLs for people who are interested:
[disclaimer: this is all information I gathered from law usenet groups and various legal web sites so it may not be completely accurate. if there are any copyright lawyers who want to correct me, please do.]
--