> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > * are met: > > ^^^^^^^ > > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Is that too hard to read? > > I'm not suggesting that the licence of the BSD code should be violated, > but that it's possible for it to become covered by an additional licence > - an application, under either a proprietary EULA or the GPL, that > includes some code under a BSD licence. The BSD licence does not cease > to apply, but the non-BSD developer is not required to make *their changes* > to the BSD code available under the BSD licence.
So? Who are you? Why do you care? We -- who wrote the code -- don't care. In fact, we are glad that companies can do that. It lets companies like Cisco and HP and IBM and Sun put code like OpenSSH into their products, instead of writing crappy versions by themselves that end up hitting bugtraq every 2nd month, and the resultant damage to the Internet that would ensure. We prefer a high quality world, over all other things. That is our choice. > A proprietary developer > can modify it and keep the changes to itself. A proprietary developer can take our code, and modify it, and ship/sell product that has high quality parts designed by smart people in it, even if that proprietary developer himself is the weakest cog. That is a better world, than forcing that developer into a position he finds unworkable, and which often results in him choosing to build embedded devices using bad models like .... WinCE (where his code is of course perhaps using Emacs, and compiled using GCC). > A GPL developer can modify > it and release the changes under the GPL, though any unmodified code > would still, of course, be under the BSD licence. Yes, the code still has to be under the BSD license. Perhaps you are smarter than Richard Stallman, who believes that code can be "relicenced" if "enough substantial changes are made". > > > Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me, > > > and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any > > > changes to your sections of the code under your licence. > > > > Not should. MUST. Read the license text again. Even if it was not > > stated in the licence term, it is a Copyright right which the author > > retains unless he surrenders it. > > They're not required to make their changes available. They're required > to acknowledge your copyright, but your licence does not require > proprietary developers to release changes at all and it does not require > GPL developers to release changes under your choice of licence. That's right. That is our choice. We're pretty brave, wouldn't you agree? We give, expecting nothing except to be known and recognized for our contribution. But our bravery killed telnet and rlogin. What has Richard Stallman's bravery killed? Not much. Proprietary code without source is very much live, and making a killing in the business market still. His infleunce in the Linux world is non-existance, since it is a bunch of companies, making a killing adding proprietary components to only mostly free code. What has his radicalism gained? People ignore him. He's on some little minor operating system's mailing list picking a fight, because all the other projects totally ignore him, because they are all run like solid American businesses. And the GPLv3? He was the puppet that sold it, but the text was mostly written by a bunch of lawyers who will take care of it after Richard dies. And they've made sure that there are holes in the less-free GPLv3, and they will make a lot of money off those who voilate the interpretation they get out of judges, once Richard dies. Ethics? Who cares. Once Richard dies, it will be a feeding frenzy. His hypocrisy just makes it even more of a sure thing. > > > The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence, > > > > None of the licenses we are talking about allow "changing the > > license". > > > > > but it > > > doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it. > > > > That's bullshit. Read it again. The BSD license gives the recipient > > some abilities, but retains others. One of those is that the source > > code must retain the license. Other restrictions... why do we care? > > Our code is still alive. > > > > HP and Cisco has included OpenSSH -- with changes they did not give > > back we are sure -- in all their router products, and none of you > > would argue that the world is not a richer place because of that. As > > a result of our giving nature, the internet at large is much more > > secure now. > > This is my point exactly: why should a GPL developer be forced to give > their *changes* back? The GPL requires source disclosure, so they are held to term (1) of the BSD license, not term (2) of the BSD license. Read it again, above. > They're still required to acknowledge your > copyright, but if HP and Cisco are permitted to keep changes to > themselves, why shouldn't the GNU project or the Linux kernel do so (or, > rather, release their changes to the code under a licence that isn't > useful to OpenBSD). Because HP and Cisco do things which make a safer world, but the GPL people don't. Let me go back to my favorite example -- OpenSSH. By that I mean that the GPL people use OpenSSH all the same. But the vendors would not. They would have telnet and rlogin and proprietary-login-of-the-year protocols, and they would have holes. Instead we gave them the vendors an alternative, and a damn good one. The GPL people don't deserve the right to take away from our vision of building a better world. Copyright law is based on an old concept of "the author's moral rights". How can Richard come barging in here talking about false ethics? Only because he has no concept of morals. He's a charlatan. > Please note that I don't think it's at all fair for a free software > project to behave like that, and modifications to OpenBSD code should be > given back to OpenBSD, but if a proprietary company doesn't have to give > changes back to OpenBSD in a way that's useful to OpenBSD, why should > GNU or Linux be required to do so? Because we do it to make a better world. And the GNU people don't deserve the credit for our efforts. And the law lets us retain the right in that way. And we are brave enough to use it that way.
