27 Jun
2005
27 Jun
'05
8:59 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:19:38PM +0200, Oliver
Schneider wrote:
Google for:
"incorporate BSD code" proprietary OR "closed source"
And skim.
Then you must understand -- when companies USE it
commercially, they are sublicensing your code under
their own EULA. They fulfill their obligation to you
(i.e., put in the notices), and then have free reign
to relicense the code as they see fit, so long as
they continue to fulfill your requirements.
Which part of the following statements says I can
plug in a toaster?
* You may use this electrical socket if you conform to
all of the following rules.
* You agree not to draw more than 20A of current.
* You agree to use proper external grounding on all
equipment that is plugged in.
The BSD license is exactly the same; very open-ended.
I could turn around and make a night-light with a
pass-trough plug in that stated:
* You may use this electrical socket if you conform to
all of the following rules.
* You agree not draw more than 2A
* You agree never to turn the light on
* You agree to turn over your first-born child to
Evil NiteLite inc.
And it wouldn't be breaing the rules of the first
statement at all.
Actually, that's a good idea ;)
Which will be really hard, since the GPL is one of
the clearest mid-sized licenses I've ever read.
It crams a lot of complexity into very easy-to-
understand, clear, specific terms. The "appropriate"
ambiguity is a very unfortunate oversight :/.
-- Travis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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!
Well, that's how BSD works everywhere. That's how
companys can sub-license it into their own code, and
that's how the GPL works with it, too.
An excerpt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing>
Traditionally, Linux associated software is licensed
under the GPL, whilst BSD derivatives often use the
BSD license. Code licensed under the BSD license can
be relicensed under the GPL (the BSD license is said
to be "GPL-compatible") without securing the consent
of all original authors; but code under the GPL cannot
be relicensed under the BSD license without securing
the consent of all original authors, as the BSD
license does not necessarily require the source code
to be again freely available.
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.
See GPL section 2.b:
You must cause any work that you distribute or
publish, that in whole or in part contains or is
derived from the Program or any part thereof,
*to be licensed as a whole
(at no charge to all third parties)
under the terms of this License.*
(emphasis mine)
The whole thing. Including your BSD code. ALL of it
has to be licensed as GPL to be distributed.
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 ;)