Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
Again, the reality is that none of this (the existence of some products that exist as binary modules) harm the community. They offer choices for users, and the more choices the better. What a horrible place the world would be without TiVo (who never would have done the work if they couldn't protect it) Yah, people might actually have to READ a book instead of watching the TV. What horrors!! Ted Or watch Meet the Press, and actually HEAR what your leaders say with context, instead of relying on whatever the media wants you to hear, or what fits an author's private agenda. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time. And RMS is a lot like Bush who says whatever is convenient for him to say at the time. There - now we got the election dragged in! Shall we try for the Nazi's? ;-) Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Thomas Sparrevohn Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Importance: High On Thursday 28 October 2004 22:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please move the discussion to FreeBSD-chat - now Set your Reply To: header to chat, works wonders for that. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
I thought I sent that mail to chat@, I wonder how the reply ended up at questions@ again. Unfortunately my provider won't let me set a Reply-To: header. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/28/04 4:49:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think that Allot modifies the Linux kernel. I wouldn't expect them to do so and I don't see an obvious reason why they should (*). Obviously some of their custom stuff needs to run inside kernel, but I rather think they enhance the kernel with some loadable modules or whatever (does Linux have KLDs?). Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with features not in the kernel, from user space? That's not what I meant and not what I wrote. You can write a loadable kernel module w/o changing the kernel sources, can't you? Plus, if they were using an unmodified kernel, why not provide the source? Put it on the machine. Whats the harm? What's the use of it? Would you pay a load of money for a product, modify it and therefore lose all the support? A while back, I fast-read a post of Linus Torvalds to a mailing list saying why he thinks that binary-only enhancements to linux must be GPL licenced (and I believed the statemant was discussed on a FreeBSD-list also). His argument was that by using the kernel headers your work automatically becomes a derived work, thus it needs to be licensed under the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed Modules use headers and are not GPLed, so clearly you're just plain wrong. Ok, we agree that modules use headers and that at least some modules are not GPL licensed. Why am I wrong? We should also agree that (at least some) kernel headers are GPL'ed. You can verify this yourself if you have the time and the bandwith. My point was that some people think that if you use a GPL'ed header file, your work must be under the GPL as well. I don't have an opinion on that point b/c I haven't had the need to think about it yet. I was rather trying to say that not even Linux people agree on how to interpret the GPL. Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time. I don't care a whole lot about the upcoming U.S. election. Plus I think it is highly inappropriate to state your political opinion in such a way on this list. It's not what the list is there for. Kind regards, Phil. -- Did you know... If you play a Windows 2000 CD backwards, you hear satanic messages, but what's worse is when you play it forward ...it installs Windows 2000 -- Alfred Perlstein on [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/29/04 5:27:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with features not in the kernel, from user space? That's not what I meant and not what I wrote. you can write a loadable kernel module w/o changing the kernel sources, can't you? Not without adding hooks, which which would have to be provided under the GPL. You've obviously never done anything like this, or know how it works, so why do you feel qualitifed to comment on it? ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/29/04 2:10:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed source, binary only drivers but, according to Linus, affects all similar products. I'm unsure if and how this issue is being dealt with. It is. It is the stated policy of the FSF that loadable kernel modules are considered part of the GPL work and therefore must be GPL'ed themselves. That is where all this is coming from. It is kind of a personal vendetta/issue with RMS I understand. This position has also created lots of controversy as you might imagine. The FSF doesnt have standing with Linux so they can blow as hard as they like and no one will really care. The FSF is a bunch of weenies whos only mission in life is to abolish anything thats not open source. Linus has stated that, if software was written for a different O/S and was ported to linux, its not a derivative work and binary modules are acceptable and don't have to be GPLed Again, the reality is that none of this (the existence of some products that exist as binary modules) harm the community. They offer choices for users, and the more choices the better. What a horrible place the world would be without TiVo (who never would have done the work if they couldn't protect it) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/28/04 9:16:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But then, I'm not sure (and I mean it) if there can be any piece of software which, if designed for e.g. Linux, can be written w/o using any system headers, libraries or whatsoever. -- I find it impossible for any reasonable person to believe that, by making its header files available an O/S vendor therefore owns the rights to anything that runs on, or interoperates with the O/S. So Microsoft owns Photoshop. And Netscape too. So why are they fighting? Its been fairly well established that Lawyers know a lot about law but not much about computing. You can't apply copyright law verbatim to an operating system, because unlike a written work, the operating systems entire purpose is to provide hooks for external applications and device drivers. Claiming that anything that works with it is a derivative is, quite simply, ridiculous. The GPL is a myth. It will never be tested because if it is, it will lose all of its teeth. Its much more useful in a speculative state. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/29/04 2:12:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time. And RMS is a lot like Bush who says whatever is convenient for him to say at the time. There - now we got the election dragged in! Shall we try for the Nazi's? ;-) Nah, we'll make the Jewish people uncomfortable. Lets talk about the French. Everyone hates the French. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/29/04 12:38:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The GPL and Linux don't care if you link into their system libraries, they expect that which is why the system libraries are LGPLd ... If I write a piece of code that uses a defined interface, it's utterly preposterous to argue that it is derivative from an *implementation* of that interface, since it could be used with *any* implementation of that interface. Its equally preposterous for the GPLers to claim that anything that works with any O/S is owned by the owner of the OS as a derivative work. But they do, and they will, because it suits them. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Oct 29, 2004, at 1:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/29/04 12:38:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The GPL and Linux don't care if you link into their system libraries, they expect that which is why the system libraries are LGPLd ... If I write a piece of code that uses a defined interface, it's utterly preposterous to argue that it is derivative from an *implementation* of that interface, since it could be used with *any* implementation of that interface. Its equally preposterous for the GPLers to claim that anything that works with any O/S is owned by the owner of the OS as a derivative work. But they do, and they will, because it suits them. It is not just the GPL folks. SCO is doing the same thing to IBMs code. Code totally removed from SCOs SysVR4 code is being claimed by SCO as a derivative work. I am not trying to open up a discussion on SCO. Just to point out that this phenomenon is not restricted to the GPL fanatics. Chad ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/29/04 3:54:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its equally preposterous for the GPLers to claim that anything that works with any O/S is owned by the owner of the OS as a derivative work. But they do, and they will, because it suits them. It is not just the GPL folks. SCO is doing the same thing to IBMs code. Code totally removed from SCOs SysVR4 code is being claimed by SCO as a derivative work. I am not trying to open up a discussion on SCO. Just to point out that this phenomenon is not restricted to the GPL fanatics. The whole SCO vs IBM mess is an illustration of just how goofy the entire GPL is. IBM claims that they have standing to sue over LINUX because they've made contributions. But since contributions are derivative works, then they shouldn't have any copyright. So does everyone who has contributed to linux have standing to sue then? Of course, I think device drivers and modules are different. The entire purpose of the device driver/module interface is to make add-ons possible without having to modify the kernel. The concept that they are also derivative works is nonsense. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 5:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence The FSF doesnt have standing with Linux so they can blow as hard as they like and no one will really care. Um, no I'm afraid it's not that simple. The FSF has publically stated that they will not 'go to bat' in a legal sense over GPL violations of non-FSF copyrighted code. In other words you are correct in that nobody cares what the FSF says about violations of the GPL license on Linux, because the FSF doesen't hold copyright on Linux. However, all it would take is someone to write a really useful part of the Linux kernel, and transfer copyright ownership over to the FSF. In that case an infringement against that section would draw them in. The FSF may already hold copyright with a kernel section or a Linux LKM already, even. Linus has stated that, if software was written for a different O/S and was ported to linux, its not a derivative work and binary modules are acceptable and don't have to be GPLed This is an extreme simplification. For starters, binary modules like drivers are going to interface to LGPL code and so won't be affected. And, full-blown applications don't link into the kernel and as long as they don't link into GPL'd libraries, they won't be affected either. None of this has anything to do with what Linus 'says' Linus is not the final arbitrator of what the GPL says, and what it requires software developers to do. Only a court can do that. In any case, software that was written for a different O/S would have already dealt with any GPL issues long before a port to Linux would have taken place. Statements like this that Linus makes are pure FUD-busting PR, and aren't any kind of legal direction. Again, the reality is that none of this (the existence of some products that exist as binary modules) harm the community. They offer choices for users, and the more choices the better. What a horrible place the world would be without TiVo (who never would have done the work if they couldn't protect it) Yah, people might actually have to READ a book instead of watching the TV. What horrors!! Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence The GPL is a myth. It will never be tested because if it is, it will lose all of its teeth. Its much more useful in a speculative state. I don't believe that the GPL will never be tested in court. In fact I think that the FSF is really wanting to see it tested in court so that it gains some legitimacy. But I think that they are waiting for the right case to come along - one that would be so obviouly favorable to them that they would almost be guarenteed to win it. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:15:17AM +0100, nbco wrote: On Wednesday 27 October 2004 23:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are people who have written custom GUI front ends for Linux stealing? They're not stealing, they are getting paid for the value that they've added. Are people that sell bottled water stealing? No one is forcing you to pay for water. But its been cleaned and nicely packaged and it fits in your cupholder, so you buy it. I have to say I generally really approve of TM4525's attitude, but on this one, you can't fool all of the people all of the time... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3523303.stm coca cola no longer sells water in England, even though it be real purdy, the punters, don't buy it. This is getting way off topic for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (therefore Reply-to: set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). Dasani water had to be withdrawn because Coca Cola's purification process resulted in the water being contaminated with unacceptable levels of bromate. Bromate is a potential carcinogen, although it takes long term, chronic exposure to have that effect. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3550063.stm Result -- Dasani is a joke and rapidly becoming a byword for corporate greed, stupidity and the misplaced belief that all you need is a marketing campaign and that it's perfectly OK to treat your customers with contempt. All of which was a particularly dumb move by Coca Cola, especially as they only suffered from the bromate contamination by trying to add calcium to the (already perfectly good) water supplied by Thames Water. The ironic thing is that within parts of it's area of operations, Thames Water supplies what must be the most calcium rich tap water supply anywhere in the country. Unfortunately for Coca Cola that water is already on the market: http://www.chilternhills.co.uk/ Although it's noticably not present in the shops round here: that's because it comes out of the taps at about 1/1000 of the price of bottled water. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgpk0ooR4UI03.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/28/04 4:49:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think that Allot modifies the Linux kernel. I wouldn't expect them to do so and I don't see an obvious reason why they should (*). Obviously some of their custom stuff needs to run inside kernel, but I rather think they enhance the kernel with some loadable modules or whatever (does Linux have KLDs?). Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with features not in the kernel, from user space? Plus, if they were using an unmodified kernel, why not provide the source? Put it on the machine. Whats the harm? A while back, I fast-read a post of Linus Torvalds to a mailing list saying why he thinks that binary-only enhancements to linux must be GPL licenced (and I believed the statemant was discussed on a FreeBSD-list also). His argument was that by using the kernel headers your work automatically becomes a derived work, thus it needs to be licensed under the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed Modules use headers and are not GPLed, so clearly you're just plain wrong. Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Thursday 28 October 2004 22:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please move the discussion to FreeBSD-chat - now In a message dated 10/28/04 4:49:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think that Allot modifies the Linux kernel. I wouldn't expect them to do so and I don't see an obvious reason why they should (*). Obviously some of their custom stuff needs to run inside kernel, but I rather think they enhance the kernel with some loadable modules or whatever (does Linux have KLDs?). Then you either know nothing about programming or nothing about their products. Do you think they do gigabit bandwidth management, with features not in the kernel, from user space? Plus, if they were using an unmodified kernel, why not provide the source? Put it on the machine. Whats the harm? A while back, I fast-read a post of Linus Torvalds to a mailing list saying why he thinks that binary-only enhancements to linux must be GPL licenced (and I believed the statemant was discussed on a FreeBSD-list also). His argument was that by using the kernel headers your work automatically becomes a derived work, thus it needs to be licensed under the GPL. I seem to recall the discussion was about nVidia's closed Modules use headers and are not GPLed, so clearly you're just plain wrong. Linus is just a big dope anyway, so who cares what he thinks? He's like Kerry. He thinks whatever is convenient for him to think at the time. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: Chuck Swiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:14 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [ ... ] You might consider that opensource.org is NOT a BSD site, it was setup by Linux people not BSD people. Sort of. The Open Source definition started from Debian guidelines about free software. However, the OSI board has people from various organizations besides Linux on there, including Sun (Danese Cooper), IBM/the Apache project (Ken Coar). You'll find people lurking from Apple (Ernie Prabhakar), Python/Zope, and various other projects. There seems to be less input from BSD-specific people besides Apple, true, but the BSD and MIT licenses are much less complicated than newer licenses and have been around longer, so perhaps people here don't see much need to spend time debating software license issues. There has been little interest from opensource.org in FreeBSD or anything other than Linux. This is not true of most people who are active on the OSI Open Source lists. When BP, ESR and the rest of them mounted their Microsoft attack letter last year - which garnered huge press - anyone from any of the BSD side was excluded. Not a single signatory was from the BSD community. OSI may appear open towards BSD but when a press photo op comes up and the big names get trotted out, all they talk about is Linux. FreeBSD and the other BSD's are ignored. It apparently is too difficult for them to actually deal with the issue that there's an alternative to the GPL, one that Microsoft happens to endorse. (ie: the BSD license) In the OSI's eyes, this is not a war of open source against closed source. This is a war between Linux and Microsoft. Besides the OSI, there is the Free Software Foundation, and the Creative Commons effort. Saying that the OSI is not an authoritative reference for open source is a lot like saying the FSF isn't authoritative on what free software means. Saying that OSI is more authoratative on the subject of BSD licenses than FreeBSD .org is a lot like saying that RMS is reasonably open about his positions, his goals, and the methods he uses to achieve them. ;-) Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence In a message dated 10/26/04 2:32:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually a more interesting example is some of the Linksys routers do indeed use an embedded Linux along with Zebra as the routing engine. Ted Or Allot communications, who openly advertise the use of linux, but do not make source available to an obviously modified kernel.. I believe they claim that the GPL is optional. Heh - didn't know about that one. Why doesen't someone ask Linus when he's going to sue over copyright infringement, next time he spouts about the GPL. This is yet another example of the GPL license flaw. While any of the copyright holders of the Linux kernel could sue Allot, if they don't, it pretty much builds evidence that is going to help those that would argue that the GPL is uninforceable. There's been a couple of other GPL cases like this - of infringement that is being ignored. One of these days I'm going to have to gather up all these and write an article on it. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: Danny MacMillan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:24 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Graham Bentley; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence I will preface my reply with the following disclaimer: I am no lawyer. However as it's clear that you're not either, it makes little practical difference. On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:51:02AM -0600, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ... What is ignored is that the GPL contains a loophole - it DOES allow itself to be violated by a very specific person - the code copyright holder. There is no violation. The copyright holder is the licensor, not the licensee. No one needs a license to use the materials to which she holds the copyright. A license is used to grant (usually limited) rights to people who do not hold the copyright. The copyright holder, by definition, has those rights and does not need them to be assigned. It is a violation of the intent of the GPL license, not a legal violation of copyright rights. You are correct in that, I should have made this more clear. The reason is that the GPL is a license that DOES NOT CHANGE the copyright. No license changes the copyright; see below. In short, if you apply the real live BSD license to your code, you are explicitly transferring your copyright to the Regents of the University of California. This is nonsense. Copyright assignment and licensing are separate and discrete. You certainly can assign your copyright to the Regents if you wish. This has no doubt been done. However, you can assign your copyright to anyone you wish, regardless of the license that is used. No, not for the BSD license, if you are using the term BSD license as it is understood by most people. You do know what the B in BSD stands for, right? I didn't say the FreeBSD license or a BSD-like license. Granted, from a legal perspective licensing and copyright assignment are separate. But, what the public understands as BSD licensed code is just that - code licensed by Berkeley. Copyright assignment to UCB is implicit here. Truthfully, the term BSD license is slang anyway. You will note on the following: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/index.html that the FreeBSD project uses the legally correct term BSD Copyright. In fact, the instant you assign your copyright you no longer have the right to decide under what license the copyrighted material will be provided (if at all), although when assigning to the Regents BSD is a pretty safe bet. Furthermore, licensing material under the BSD license does not imply that the copyright will be transferred to the Regents. The copyright holder is identified at the top of the BSD license; this information is important as it identifies the licensor, one party to the agreement represented by the license. For material you wrote, you are the copyright holder unless and until you explicitly assign the copyright to another entity, or you're under some agreement with someone (with your employer, for example) that causes the copyright for the product of your work to belong to them. Identifying the Regents as the copyright holder at the top of a BSD license pertaining to material you wrote probably is legally sufficient to transfer the copyright to them, but you are not obligated to identify them as the copyright holder or relinquish your copyright just to use the BSD license. I refer you to the license itself: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php Note the placeholder for owner. You might consider that opensource.org is NOT a BSD site, it was setup by Linux people not BSD people. There has been little interest from opensource.org in FreeBSD or anything other than Linux. In fact, they are so bigoted that Bruce Perens, who was one of the founders of OSI, got completely disgusted with them and left. Details of this were documented in an interview Bruce did for the September 2001 issue of Linux Magazine, pages 35-38 You would get far better information about the BSD license from a BSD-related site, like the FreeBSD link I supplied above. I fully expect you to argue that a BSD license that does not identify the Regents of the University of California is not the real live BSD license. I would disagree. By what criteria can an authentic BSD license be distinguished from lesser imitations? I doubt that whether the Regents are the licensor are not is a criteria in common use -- see above web site, which is about as authoritative a reference as exists for free and open source licenses. It's also instructive to peruse the source code for the ostensibly BSD-licensed FreeBSD operating system and see who holds the copyright. I would argue this because it's true. You saying that a BSD license is the same thing as a BSD-like license is simply false. And FreeBSD already has made it's statements regarding the source code copyright statements, as detailed
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gert Cuykens Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence If you buy a product what would you want ? A pretty box or pretty software ? Finishing the product is just marketing and trying to make a very pretty box to put the software in. No, not exactly. It's more than just a box and marketing. It is support also. When something is open source and you want to sell it you are forced to make it the best peace of code out there. Or, you are forced to provide support for it. Or both. Its what i call healthy competition. For me open source translates into If you think you can do better be my guest Finishing a product and making it closed source is just plain wrong. Its like stealing from the church basket. Every body shares something and you want to take it and keep it for your self. Perhaps this is true in some cases, but not all. Take for example the development of the TCP/IP stack. When BSD came out with TCP/IP networking, there were a lot of companies that finished it and then made their finished product closed-source. But, if you think about it, this WASN'T a bad thing! In fact, it was a very good thing! Because what this did is it created a situation where practically all vendor's implementations of TCP/IP worked very well with each other. This of course, promoted the rapid spread of TCP/IP, which gave UNIX a big leg up. It is fair to say I think that if the Internet had been developed around some other protocol than TCP/IP that was NOT native to UNIX, that we would not see the prevalence of UNIX webservers on the Internet that we do. I think that in MOST cases, even the people that finish an open source product then sell it and keep their mods to themselves, they are contributing back to the open source. Granted much less than people who share. But, the fact that the product exists at all helps the open source package. When Apple selected FreeBSD as the base for Darwin and MacOS X, it gave a huge amount of legitimacy to FreeBSD. Most of the major FreeBSD developers went to work for Apple, as a matter of fact, and while Apple didn't contribute a flood of code back into FreeBSD, I am sure that a goodly amount of FreeBSD development that we don't know about takes place on Apple company time. But, it helps because if you go in today to pitch a FreeBSD solution, bringing up the Apple tie can help you to get the deal. Also, many MacOS users who graduated to MacOS X once they got over the initial learning curve of the operating system, they have got more interested in UNIX. I would suspect that we will see some of those folks start to make some contributions back to FreeBSD or to UNIX software in general. And of course, don't forget all the commercial software vendors who were previously selling MacOS applications, now those folks are porting or have ported their stuff to MacOS X. It's a lot easier to go from MacOX X to UNIX, then from MacOS Classic to UNIX. So, don't knock this kind of thing when you see it happen, just keep in mind that there are always going to be some benefits, perhaps not just that visible. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [ ... ] You might consider that opensource.org is NOT a BSD site, it was setup by Linux people not BSD people. Sort of. The Open Source definition started from Debian guidelines about free software. However, the OSI board has people from various organizations besides Linux on there, including Sun (Danese Cooper), IBM/the Apache project (Ken Coar). You'll find people lurking from Apple (Ernie Prabhakar), Python/Zope, and various other projects. There seems to be less input from BSD-specific people besides Apple, true, but the BSD and MIT licenses are much less complicated than newer licenses and have been around longer, so perhaps people here don't see much need to spend time debating software license issues. There has been little interest from opensource.org in FreeBSD or anything other than Linux. This is not true of most people who are active on the OSI Open Source lists. In fact, they are so bigoted that Bruce Perens, who was one of the founders of OSI, got completely disgusted with them and left. Details of this were documented in an interview Bruce did for the September 2001 issue of Linux Magazine, pages 35-38 Perhaps so. There are some people there who cross the line into rabid Linux evangelism, but you can find OS zealots pretty much anywhere. Nevertheless, I got the impression that the issue you refer to had more to do with a personal conflict between Bruce Perens and ESR. You would get far better information about the BSD license from a BSD-related site, like the FreeBSD link I supplied above. Larry Rosen provides legal services for them, and he knows his stuff. The Open Source Initiative is not about as authoritative a reference as exists for free and open source licenses It is a political PR machine that exists to keep Eric Raymond able to command expensive speaking fees from ignorant people who don't know any better. Besides the OSI, there is the Free Software Foundation, and the Creative Commons effort. Saying that the OSI is not an authoritative reference for open source is a lot like saying the FSF isn't authoritative on what free software means. No doubt ESR has his own agenda, but he is reasonably open about his positions, his goals, and the methods he uses to achieve them. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/27/04 4:49:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is yet another example of the GPL license flaw. While any of the copyright holders of the Linux kernel could sue Allot, if they don't, it pretty much builds evidence that is going to help those that would argue that the GPL is uninforceable. There's been a couple of other GPL cases like this - of infringement that is being ignored. One of these days I'm going to have to gather up all these and write an article on it. ^- A problem with suing a company with a team of lawyers is that is will cost you a fortune, and what do you get? They have to agree not to sell it anymore? Its a pretty big project proving the validity of a license thats never really been seriously tested. You can't really claim damages if you have no intention of making money as a basic premise (and 3 times nothing is nothing). So they probably figure no one is going to do it. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/27/04 12:59:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you buy a product what would you want ? A pretty box or pretty software ? Finishing the product is just marketing and trying to make a very pretty box to put the software in. When something is open source and you want to sell it you are forced to make it the best peace of code out there. Its what i call healthy competition. For me open source translates into If you think you can do better be my guest Finishing a product and making it closed source is just plain wrong. Its like stealing from the church basket. Every body shares something and you want to take it and keep it for your self. ^ I want : 1) a product thats finshed. Not with a long TODO list of basic features 2) a product that is bulletproof (or near so), that doesnt have only 25% of cases tested 3) a product that I don't have to spend 3 weeks of my time (@$300/hr) to get to the point that I can use it 4) a product where I have a contact that I can ask questions, and that I can expect to get obviously broken things fixed Any marginal programmer can write programs that do stuff. Getting people to be willing to pay for it is an entirely different level of talent and work. Its not just marketing. Marketing comes AFTER you have a product. Are people who have written custom GUI front ends for Linux stealing? They're not stealing, they are getting paid for the value that they've added. Are people that sell bottled water stealing? No one is forcing you to pay for water. But its been cleaned and nicely packaged and it fits in your cupholder, so you buy it. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 23:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/27/04 12:59:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you buy a product what would you want ? A pretty box or pretty software ? Finishing the product is just marketing and trying to make a very pretty box to put the software in. When something is open source and you want to sell it you are forced to make it the best peace of code out there. Its what i call healthy competition. For me open source translates into If you think you can do better be my guest Finishing a product and making it closed source is just plain wrong. Its like stealing from the church basket. Every body shares something and you want to take it and keep it for your self. snip Are people who have written custom GUI front ends for Linux stealing? They're not stealing, they are getting paid for the value that they've added. Are people that sell bottled water stealing? No one is forcing you to pay for water. But its been cleaned and nicely packaged and it fits in your cupholder, so you buy it. I have to say I generally really approve of TM4525's attitude, but on this one, you can't fool all of the people all of the time... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3523303.stm coca cola no longer sells water in England, even though it be real purdy, the punters, don't buy it. .nbco ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dennis Koegel Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 1:21 AM To: Philipp Huber Because Juniper, for example, are perfectly free to decide against making their changes to the (in this case) FreeBSD code available anyone at all. You do realize, don't you, that the interesting part of a Juniper is the microcode in their DSP routing engine. FreeBSD is only used to control the routing engine in a Juniper router, it isn't used AS the routing engine. I really doubt that anything Juniper has done to FreeBSD would be of much interest to anyone other than Cisco Systems, and Cisco would only be interested in it as a way of finding out weaknesses in Juniper routers that they could market against. Actually a more interesting example is some of the Linksys routers do indeed use an embedded Linux along with Zebra as the routing engine. Ted ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:32:04PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: Because Juniper, for example [...] You do realize, don't you, that the interesting part of a Juniper is the microcode in their DSP routing engine. FreeBSD is only used to control the routing engine in a Juniper router, it isn't used AS the routing engine. Of course I do realize that. It was merely an example, apparently not the best one. It's their choice to do or don't, that's all I said. (For terminology: The i386 part with FreeBSD is the routing engine, the awesome hardware is the forwarding engine). And now I need to digest this Linksys + Zebra mixture... ;-) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL vs BSD Licence
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Graham Bentley Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GPL vs BSD Licence Hi List ! Perusing the Internet the other day I came across a short interview with Linus Torvalds from a while back. He was asked about the GPL vs BSD Licence. As I dont fully understand the development process I was wondering if anyone could comment on his reply below? I (mis?)interpret this as follows :- If you use some BSD code in some project that you turn into proprietry code you just need to include the appropriate acknowledgement statements - No. Once again, the acknowledgement clause was revoked a long time ago because of bigots like him spouting their mouths. It's ironic that the very idiots that the acknowledgement clause was revoked for still don't understand it's revoked. but you can exclude anyone from using that new code / solution. Yes. Since there's no obligation to publish, that is how this is done. Of course, someone could reverse engineer your code. With the GPL you are explicitly giving away your right to do this whilst at the same time leaving a the door open for others if they want to use your code / solution. Absolutely wrong. What is ignored is that the GPL contains a loophole - it DOES allow itself to be violated by a very specific person - the code copyright holder. The reason is that the GPL is a license that DOES NOT CHANGE the copyright. In short, if you apply the real live BSD license to your code, you are explicitly transferring your copyright to the Regents of the University of California. The Regents have committed to NOT selling that copyright to some commercial entity. In fact, years ago the Regents actually sold BSD source licenses, Sun and HP were among the licensees, as a way of making money. This was back when CSRG was still viable. Today, there's no commercial viability for the UCB source license, due to the whole issue with the ATT lawsuit and subsequent BSD Lite release, and also because FreeBSD is really where the action has been at for a long time, not UCB. By contrast the GPL concerns itself with REDISTRIBUTION not copyright. You are free to take your code and release it with a GPL license and your OWN copyright applied. Yes, people can use your GPL-licensed code in their products as long as they make their changes available. But what is frequently forgotten is that YOU are STILL able to license out your code to commercial entities. This is how mySQL makes money. Licensees of the mysql code - and there are more than you think - pay MySQL AB and do NOT make improvements that they make, public under GPL. This financial fact of life is not unknown by most GPL developers. Also note the following in the Linux kernel itself - for example, 2.6.9 in the file COPYING: Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. In short, Linus Torvalds owns copyright on the Linux kernel used in Linux. He is legally free to license a copy of the Linux kernel to any commercial entity. Granted, he cannot license out any files of the Linux kernel that he himself didn't write. And of course, an OS is so complex and has so many files, that it would be likely that a purely Linus Torvalds kernel would be unrunnable. (at lest the kernel of today) But in theory he could take his code and license it to some UNIX vendor separately, he is not obligated to license new versions of it under the GPL. Now, you might think So what, Linus will never do this But, what if he dies of a heart attack tomorrow? Well, his copyright of Linux is property that will exist for another 70 years. What happens if some company like SCO Group comes along and offers Linus's heirs a million dollars to purchase the Linux kernel copyright? Do you think they wouldn't sell? Sure, the GPL'd version of the kernel is still out there. But, the copyright owner could make hay with the subsequent confusion. These issues are NOT speculative and are NOT unknown by the Free Software Foundation, who is the copyright holder of the GPL license itself. In fact, the FSF advises authors to transfer copyright rights of their work to the FSF to avoid these problems. But, very few have done so. It appears most GPL license proponents who write code they put under the GPL are more than willing to blather on about how great the GPL is, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they are unwilling to back up what they say. The day that Linuc transfers his Linux copyright to the FSF I will start respecting what he has to say about licensing. Until then, what he is saying is pure bullshit. Ted Mittelstaedt ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/26/04 2:32:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually a more interesting example is some of the Linksys routers do indeed use an embedded Linux along with Zebra as the routing engine. Ted Or Allot communications, who openly advertise the use of linux, but do not make source available to an obviously modified kernel.. I believe they claim that the GPL is optional. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
I will preface my reply with the following disclaimer: I am no lawyer. However as it's clear that you're not either, it makes little practical difference. On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:51:02AM -0600, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: ... What is ignored is that the GPL contains a loophole - it DOES allow itself to be violated by a very specific person - the code copyright holder. There is no violation. The copyright holder is the licensor, not the licensee. No one needs a license to use the materials to which she holds the copyright. A license is used to grant (usually limited) rights to people who do not hold the copyright. The copyright holder, by definition, has those rights and does not need them to be assigned. The reason is that the GPL is a license that DOES NOT CHANGE the copyright. No license changes the copyright; see below. In short, if you apply the real live BSD license to your code, you are explicitly transferring your copyright to the Regents of the University of California. This is nonsense. Copyright assignment and licensing are separate and discrete. You certainly can assign your copyright to the Regents if you wish. This has no doubt been done. However, you can assign your copyright to anyone you wish, regardless of the license that is used. In fact, the instant you assign your copyright you no longer have the right to decide under what license the copyrighted material will be provided (if at all), although when assigning to the Regents BSD is a pretty safe bet. Furthermore, licensing material under the BSD license does not imply that the copyright will be transferred to the Regents. The copyright holder is identified at the top of the BSD license; this information is important as it identifies the licensor, one party to the agreement represented by the license. For material you wrote, you are the copyright holder unless and until you explicitly assign the copyright to another entity, or you're under some agreement with someone (with your employer, for example) that causes the copyright for the product of your work to belong to them. Identifying the Regents as the copyright holder at the top of a BSD license pertaining to material you wrote probably is legally sufficient to transfer the copyright to them, but you are not obligated to identify them as the copyright holder or relinquish your copyright just to use the BSD license. I refer you to the license itself: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php Note the placeholder for owner. I fully expect you to argue that a BSD license that does not identify the Regents of the University of California is not the real live BSD license. I would disagree. By what criteria can an authentic BSD license be distinguished from lesser imitations? I doubt that whether the Regents are the licensor are not is a criteria in common use -- see above web site, which is about as authoritative a reference as exists for free and open source licenses. It's also instructive to peruse the source code for the ostensibly BSD-licensed FreeBSD operating system and see who holds the copyright. Most of the rest of your arguments, being based on this fallacy, is invalid. To the extent that your arguments against the GPL are valid, they are equally valid arguments against the BSD license. ... In short, Linus Torvalds owns copyright on the Linux kernel used in Linux. He is legally free to license a copy of the Linux kernel to any commercial entity. Granted, he cannot license out any files of the Linux kernel that he himself didn't write. And of course, an OS is so complex and has so many files, that it would be likely that a purely Linus Torvalds kernel would be unrunnable. (at lest the kernel of today) But in theory he could take his code and license it to some UNIX vendor separately, he is not obligated to license new versions of it under the GPL. Now, you might think So what, Linus will never do this But, what if he dies of a heart attack tomorrow? Well, his copyright of Linux is property that will exist for another 70 years. What happens if some company like SCO Group comes along and offers Linus's heirs a million dollars to purchase the Linux kernel copyright? Do you think they wouldn't sell? Sure, the GPL'd version of the kernel is still out there. But, the copyright owner could make hay with the subsequent confusion. These issues are NOT speculative and are NOT unknown by the Free Software Foundation, who is the copyright holder of the GPL license itself. In fact, the FSF advises authors to transfer copyright rights of their work to the FSF to avoid these problems. Ah, so your point is that people should transfer their copyrights to an organization dedicated to keeping the code free. Well, maybe they should, but that has nothing to do with which license is used. But, very few have done so. It appears most GPL license proponents who write code they put under the GPL are more than
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/26/04 2:26:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Foundation, who is the copyright holder of the GPL license itself. In fact, the FSF advises authors to transfer copyright rights of their work to the FSF to avoid these problems. Ah, so your point is that people should transfer their copyrights to an organization dedicated to keeping the code free. Well, maybe they should,but that has nothing to do with which license is used. I think they both have it wrong. If you want to donate your code to the general community, make it available with no restrictions. The entire concept of here, use my crappy code but don't make any money off of it is totally lame. If someone takes it and doesn't give away the changes it doesn't diminish the original contribution. Its still there. Finishing a product is what has value. Anyone can write code that does this or that. Making it into something that someone is willing to pay for is what has value. And the more products that are available, the better off the community is. Even if they're not free. You still have the choice of paying for it or not. And you still have the original contribution to change as you please. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:50:16 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/26/04 2:26:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Foundation, who is the copyright holder of the GPL license itself. In fact, the FSF advises authors to transfer copyright rights of their work to the FSF to avoid these problems. Ah, so your point is that people should transfer their copyrights to an organization dedicated to keeping the code free. Well, maybe they should,but that has nothing to do with which license is used. I think they both have it wrong. If you want to donate your code to the general community, make it available with no restrictions. The entire concept of here, use my crappy code but don't make any money off of it is totally lame. If someone takes it and doesn't give away the changes it doesn't diminish the original contribution. Its still there. Finishing a product is what has value. Anyone can write code that does this or that. Making it into something that someone is willing to pay for is what has value. And the more products that are available, the better off the community is. Even if they're not free. You still have the choice of paying for it or not. And you still have the original contribution to change as you please. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you buy a product what would you want ? A pretty box or pretty software ? Finishing the product is just marketing and trying to make a very pretty box to put the software in. When something is open source and you want to sell it you are forced to make it the best peace of code out there. Its what i call healthy competition. For me open source translates into If you think you can do better be my guest Finishing a product and making it closed source is just plain wrong. Its like stealing from the church basket. Every body shares something and you want to take it and keep it for your self. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL vs BSD Licence
Hi List ! Perusing the Internet the other day I came across a short interview with Linus Torvalds from a while back. He was asked about the GPL vs BSD Licence. As I dont fully understand the development process I was wondering if anyone could comment on his reply below? I (mis?)interpret this as follows :- If you use some BSD code in some project that you turn into proprietry code you just need to include the appropriate acknowledgement statements - but you can exclude anyone from using that new code / solution. With the GPL you are explicitly giving away your right to do this whilst at the same time leaving a the door open for others if they want to use your code / solution. Sorry if this has been discussed at length before on the list but I think its an intersting topic and would welcome enlightenment. --- snip --- Q: Do you ever wish you'd opted for a BSD-style license instead of the GPL? LT: Absolutely not. I personally think that the BSD license is a dead end for serious projects, since it inevitably results in forking with no way to re-join if it becomes commercially viable. Forking a project is in my opinion hugely important, since forks are how all real development gets done, and the ability to fork keeps everybody honest (i.e. if you don't do a good job and keep your users happy, they can always fork the project and go on their own) But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side. -- snip --- Edit: Apache/FreeBSD seem to have come along way for a 'non-serious projects' :) Custom PC North West Open Source Solutions http://www.cpcnw.co.uk ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side. i don't really get what the gpl or bsd license has to do with rejoining forks. why shouldn't bsd licensed projects be able to refork in case... -- Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Ausgaben der TV Movie mit DVD Jetzt anmelden und testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:44:36AM +0200, Philipp Huber wrote: But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side. i don't really get what the gpl or bsd license has to do with rejoining forks. why shouldn't bsd licensed projects be able to refork in case... Because Juniper, for example, are perfectly free to decide against making their changes to the (in this case) FreeBSD code available anyone at all. For them, that may be a positive thing, because they don't have to open their work for the competition. But this is exactly what the GPL is aiming to avoid. HTH, - D. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL vs BSD Licence
In a message dated 10/25/04 4:21:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side. i don't really get what the gpl or bsd license has to do with rejoining forks. why shouldn't bsd licensed projects be able to refork in case... Because Juniper, for example, are perfectly free to decide against making their changes to the (in this case) FreeBSD code available anyone at all. For them, that may be a positive thing, because they don't have to open their work for the competition. But this is exactly what the GPL is aiming to avoid. --- The lack of foresight of the GPL is that, if Jupiter had no choice but to give away their work, then the work never would have been done, so even people willing to pay for it wouldn't have it. The GPL vs BSD issue is like liberal vs conservative. The liberal plaform sounds good and reasonable to those who don't understand the bigger picture. GPL is good if you're a programmer or hacker. But the companies that never put their corporate dollars into projects, because they can't make a profit from them, hurts the community in a different way. Products that would be available for sale aren't made available. People who can't spin their own don't get things that they need (which is why most companies use MS stuff). Most companies don't want source, they want stuff that works. FreeBSD is a perfect example of a thriving project with BSD licensing. Is FreeBSD a dead end? Is the community worse off because companies like Cayote Point and Emerging Technologies don't give the source to their products? No, because those products never would have been created if they were hindered by the GPL. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Liberal vs Conservative [Re: GPL vs BSD Licence]
Forgive my etiquete, please. Since I'm certainly not answering any questions, I felt it appropriate to take this off of questions. Is that good form, or have I put the proverbial foot in mouth? On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:47:14 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/25/04 4:21:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -- big snip -- The lack of foresight of the GPL is that, if Jupiter had no choice but to give away their work, then the work never would have been done, so even people willing to pay for it wouldn't have it. The GPL vs BSD issue is like liberal vs conservative. I agree-ish. However, I would say that conservative implies (loosely) remaining the same, which is to say, supporting institutions or traditions already in place. On the other hand, liberal, in this case, would mean the opposite: unbound by tradition. (liberal also, of course, is anti-authoritarian) Both licences seem to be liberal, then, in that they break from traditional licencing. Look deeper, though, and you see that the BSD licence allows further development without restriction, while the GPL licence imposes its own tradition, as best it can, in perpetuity. The liberal plaform sounds good and reasonable to those who don't understand the bigger picture. This was the comment to which I had to reply. I know the GPL/BSD argument has been had over and over again. Is GPL free-er or is BSD free-er, etc. And, although I did bring it up, I'm sorry :P I must point out, though, that I always considered the BSD licence to be the most liberal available. Also, I find it insulting to think that by following a liberal platform, I'm missing the bigger picture. In fact, I feel that by following the *conservative* GPL licence, many are missing the bigger picture: if you attempt to exert any sort of authority over things (code, furniture, land, people) you will propigate the notion that authority over those things is an acceptable one. By truly relinquishing control over the things, you are allowing freedom, as an ideology and practice, to gain momentum--not to mention, being quite liberal. -snip- FreeBSD is a perfect example of a thriving project with BSD licensing. Is FreeBSD a dead end? Is the community worse off because companies like Cayote Point and Emerging Technologies don't give the source to their products? No, because those products never would have been created if they were hindered by the GPL. Absolutely. And maybe, after existing for decades and gaining more and more market share, and, therefore, economic value, these companies will decide that BSDing their code: is *not* financial suicide, will spur innovation, allows them to improve their product cheaply and quickly, improves securit, on on, and so, they will. Instead of forcing the licence on these companies, as the GPL would've done, the BSD licence, and the success of BSD/Open Source projects, is simply showing the way. If that's not a liberal idea, what is? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Liberal vs Conservative [Re: GPL vs BSD Licence]
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:52:01 -0500, Vijay Kaul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forgive my etiquete, please. Since I'm certainly not answering any questions, I felt it appropriate to take this off of questions. Is that good form, or have I put the proverbial foot in mouth? Ha!!! And then, truly puting said foot in mouth, I post to questions anyway! Take that! (oops.) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
