On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Landon Fuller wrote: > This argument is predicated on a few assumptions: > > 1) Vendor's usage of GPL software denotes blanket superiority > of said software.
No, however using software subject to the GPL licence means that the vendor must comply with it. The flaw of BSD licenses for me is that someone can take my (or Kerns) work, repackage it as their own or modify it and not contribute the modifications back to the developer/user community > 2) Users of software have a fundamental, moral right to not > only the open source licensed implementations, but any aggregate work based > atop those implementations. Users of the software have a LEGAL right to the source code of all GPL implementations and implementations derived from GPL base. Code written from scratch may run atop the GPL platform and is subject to the copyright holder's licensing rules. Code which hooks into the core of GPL code may itself become subject to GPL (eg, various drivers) depending on the flavour of GPL lience of that code. sections > 3a) With the GPL, vendors will generally create a product based > open source software, and then contribute their changes back to the projects > in a usable form. Generally yes. however there is clear percentage of vendors who deliberately violate the licensing agreemnts and therefore become software pirates - which is stupid, because there is no cost involved in complying other than admitting the code is non-proprietary. Having an injunction served halting distribution of software or hardware can be extremely costly in terms of both direct financial costs and customer perception. > 3b) Without the GPL, vendors will generally create a product > based on open source software and NOT contribute their changes back to > projects in a usable form. The GPL is one of many license types available. The overall experience of development on BSD-liences has been that vendors decline to make changes available. > 3c) The author of open source software desires, or is best > served, by royalties for all aggregate works. The copyright holder has a variety of licencing types available and has the right to make it available in any way he or she sees fit. > The wide-spread adoption of GPLd software in the wireless sphere (such as > that by Broadcom) is not -necessarily- based on the technical superiority of > Linux, or GPLd software as a whole. As I was very interested in why vendors > were using Linux on embedded devices, and not, say, NetBSD, I asked a friend > of mine who formerly worked at devicescape Software, Inc -- a supplier of > software for wireless devices. While devicescape did seriously consider > NetBSD, they decided to base their product on Linux for a very simple > reason: Foreign hardware vendors know the "Linux" brand, and that sold > software. Their choice had more to do with brand recognition than technical > superiority or licensing. That's all very well, however if Devicescape did not make those vendors aware of their licensing compliance requirements those vendors may well have a legal case against the company for failing to disclose all the conditions of sale. D-link recently tried to defend GPL violations in a German court by claiming that the GPL was not legally binding and were informed by the judge in no uncertain terms that they were incorrect. > It is more difficult to address the notion of a user's "moral right" to > aggregate work But far easier to address the issue of the user's LEGAL rights. > The BSD license short-circuits the limited, artificial copyright > monopoly -- opening your contribution to the world for *immediate* use > by all comers, for all purposes. Including claiming full copyright on derivative code and preventing it being used elsewhere. In most circles this is known as "profiting upon the work of others", however if you wish to use the BSD license then that is your choice. Many years ago, I released code under BSD - and saw it disappear into companies, become closed source and rereleased under proprietary agreements, benefitting those companies, but not the greater community. > The GPL does not. I choose the BSD license when I believe > that I will gain more by allowing immediate, unlimited, unrestricted > aggregate work. However you leave your codebase open to being incorporated into 3rd party closed source packages. That is your choice. > I do not claim that this is the best choice, merely a reasoned one > designed to gain maximum personal benefit. If you wish for royalties on > commercial, close-source use of your work, you would likely choose > otherwise. As Microsoft chose... (often on the back of BSD-license networking code) > Lastly, there is the aphorism that the GPL will lead to more vendor > contribution than a more permissive license. I do not believe that licensing > is a primary motivator in the decision to open source software in most (not > all!) cases. Let's assume logical, informed actors -- if a company is > comfortable with open sourcing their own code, there are inherent motivators > to doing so regardless of whether they are compelled by licensing. Most GPL license violators tend to be aggregators who aim to obscure the origin of their code in order to maintain lock-in. The legal point of view is unambiguous. If you do not intend to comply with the licensing conditions of a piece of GPL software, do not use it and do not develop derivatives based upon it. This has nothing to do with morals - just legal rights and obligations. AB ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
