27 Jun
2005
27 Jun
'05
8:19 p.m.
Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a
business can take your code, make a product, and
release that product with whatever (sub)license they
want. This happens all of the time, and is the major
"boon" of the BSD.
Actually I cannot find this anywhere in the license.
But I'll believe you ;)
This also means that BSD code could (theoretically)
become extinct in the "free" word; e.g., if all
versions of the code could be snapped up by
proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors
disappeared. This is one of the reasons people
choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that the
source stays open and (additionally) that changes get
fed back to the community if the binaries are
distributed.
That's exactly why I carefully choose my license beforehand. Some
of my
codes are GPL (currently 2 projects). These are things where the efforts
should not be used "commercially" (usually the GPL keeps away companies in
the Wintel-world) by others.
Here is the text of the BSD license:
I know it.
But which part tells me someone can sublicense it?
You know the problem here is the following:
- No, I have no problem with projects using GPL to use my BSDLed code
- Yes, I have a problem if my BSDLed code is published by them under the
terms of the GPL. Because this means they can restrict the rights I
have granted to the licensees. I think this is not possible like this!
If I understand the cited paragraphs of the GPL correctly it means that the
code parts can be used but do not become GPLed. That's my view from reading
it.
So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed by
pretty much everybody, and it can also be "converted"
to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible').
"GPL-compatible" is
okay with me (that's OpenSource ;) ... "GPLed" - i.e.
restricted by GPL - is not.
I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with
one
stone on this one.
(-: We Germans kill two flies instead of birds :-P
Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that
we
could implicitly terminate any of these licenses even
on suspicion (i.e., guilty until proven innocent), and
that just doesn't make sense.
That's an interesting view.
Von: Royce Mitchell III
Sounds to me the most prudent course of action would be a new version of
the GPL license which clarifies this particular bit of confusion.
This is being
worked on currently (AFAIK). They want to make it much simpler
so non-native speakers can understand it without a PhD from a law school ;)
Cheers,
Oliver
--
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)
ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net