Post by thread:[OT] BSD vs GPL licenses, how they tangle

On 10/28/07, Peter P. <spam_OUTplpeter2006TakeThisOuTyahoo.com> wrote: > In continuation to the license type thread, I would like to post a link to an > article I found, that relates to this issue, and shows that not even BSD > licensed code is immune from GPL viaral contamination ... > > http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2902106404.html > > And adds one more argument to what I said: 'do NOT > mix open source licenses with each other and with closed > license code'. This is true. And it is a long term goal for BSD distros to be relatively GPL free. Currently they still rely on GCC for the toolchain and I think the situation will continue for a long time. Reference: read FreeBSD and NetBSD's response to GPLv3. http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp#KeyProjects Xiaofan

> > And adds one more argument to what I said: 'do NOT mix open source > > licenses with each other and with closed license code'. > > > If that's true, that's definitely the end of open source ;-) Stef Make that 'if it *were* true'. Many OS licenses can be mixed quite well. Using a mix of OS licenses for a commercial purpose surely requires a software-compent lawyer, but one is likely required anyway once you start to use third-party code (OS or other license) in your commnercial product. Wouter van Ooijen -- ------------------------------------------- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl consultancy, development, PICmicro products docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

On 10/28/07, stef mientki <.....stef.mientkiKILLspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote: > > > And adds one more argument to what I said: 'do NOT mix open source > > licenses with each other and with closed license code'. > > > If that's true, that's definitely the end of open source ;-) I think it should be rephrased as " DO not mix permissive license like BSD with more restricted license like GPL without consulting the lawyer". www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2902106404.html OpenBSD developers are not happy with some GPL wrappers on BSD codes. However, some Linux developers are also unhappy that BSD may copy their codes and put BSD licenses on them. The following is a very good technical discussion. However licensing problem does come into play. linux-usb-develKILLspamlists.sourceforge.net/6720281.html">http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/.....linux-usb-develKILLspam.....lists.sourceforge.net/6720281.html On 5/18/07, Pete Zaitcev <EraseMEzaitcevspam_OUTTakeThisOuTredhat.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:13 -0700, David Brownell <david-bspam_OUTpacbell.net> wrote: > > > So what's the model ... GPL'd Linux drivers will be modified to > > incorporate that call, so they'd work better on FreeBSD? > > I thought that we ignored this on purpose and talking about the > licensing so deeply in the thread is too late. What have we spent > all this energy for up to this point? > > It was clear from the start that the model is exactly what you > surmised. It's a fact of life that BSDs steal Linux code and slap > their own copyright and licensing on it. The story of OpenBSD and > the Broadcom wireless was just the latest example. However, we > cannot preclude them doing this, and least of all by pretending > that they'd stop if we ask nicely. > > I chose to not discuss this up to this point and take the best > from Hans' independent insight, because this way I (as a kernel > hacker) receive at least some benefit. If I turned Hans away right > off the bat, his cohorts would still do the same thing, only without > talking to us. That would be a net loss for Linux. >

Xiaofan Chen wrote: IANAL! BTW, the initial link you provided was about a developer that had release his code (I think) under a dual license and some of the BSD or GPL folks took issue with the other license. This raised a big stink over nothing. If you are the sole copyright holder on the code you can release your code under as many licenses as you want. You could also do that with group code but all the copyright holders must agree on this. > However, some Linux developers are also unhappy that > BSD may copy their codes and put BSD licenses on them. It is my opinion that you can't do that as the BSD license lets you do things with the code that the GPL doesn't let you do (I hope I worded that correctly). -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry @spam@ncherryKILLspamlinuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

On Oct 28, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Neil Cherry wrote: > If you are the sole copyright holder on the code you can > release your code under as many licenses as you want. But I thought the idea of open source was to benefit from the massive amount of open source software; ie no application is likely to have ANY "sole copyright holder." I'm starting to see similarities between open source advocates and the RIAA and similar organizations that they hold as ultimate evils; it's all about restricting the users from using the "intellectual property" in ways that the "owner" disapproves of. (you just have to decide whether an intermediate level "programmer" is a "user" or not.) (Hmm. GPL == DRM? Perhaps GPL3 will disallow itself!) BillW

On 10/29/07, William Chops Westfield <KILLspamwestfwKILLspammac.com> wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Neil Cherry wrote: > > > If you are the sole copyright holder on the code you can > > release your code under as many licenses as you want. > > But I thought the idea of open source was to benefit from > the massive amount of open source software; ie no application > is likely to have ANY "sole copyright holder." There are many contributors to OpenOffice but Sun wants to be the sole copyright holder. There are many contributors to GCC but FSF is the sole copyright holder. > I'm starting to see similarities between open source advocates > and the RIAA and similar organizations that they hold as ultimate > evils; it's all about restricting the users from using the > "intellectual property" in ways that the "owner" disapproves of. > (you just have to decide whether an intermediate level "programmer" > is a "user" or not.) (Hmm. GPL == DRM? Perhaps GPL3 will > disallow itself!) Oops, this will again be a bit too controversial. Xiaofan

William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > On Oct 28, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Neil Cherry wrote: First allow me to state: "IANAL". I have read through various licenses and hope I understand many of the issues. I'm sure I still don't understand it all. The lines between copyrights and licenses is very confusing. >> If you are the sole copyright holder on the code you can >> release your code under as many licenses as you want. > > But I thought the idea of open source was to benefit from > the massive amount of open source software; ie no application > is likely to have ANY "sole copyright holder." That I'm not sure of, I don't think that was the original intention. I think the FSF undertook that effort. Anything I've patched (bug fixes) I've given to the main copyright holder it simplifies things later. A few things I still hold the copyrights on and I've had some problems with licenses. > I'm starting to see similarities between open source advocates > and the RIAA and similar organizations that they hold as ultimate > evils; I agree with Xiaofan, the comment is a bit inflammatory. > it's all about restricting the users from using the > "intellectual property" in ways that the "owner" disapproves of. That seems to the exact purpose of a license otherwise it would be public domain. But isn't it true that it's also keeping others from abusing the author's work. The Open Source licenses are somewhere somewhere between a closed license and the public domain. > (you just have to decide whether an intermediate level "programmer" > is a "user" or not.) (Hmm. GPL == DRM? Perhaps GPL3 will > disallow itself!) A good question, so where does the line between copyright, license, and EULA begin and end. I currently don't know what to think of the GPL3. -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry RemoveMEncherryTakeThisOuTlinuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

Neil Cherry <ncherry <at> comcast.net> writes: > I currently don't know what to think of the GPL3. To understand what the GPL3 does you should read RMS's Brazil speech, available as a transcript on the net. Specifically 'tivoisation', which touches linux-on-hardware where it hurts the GPL community most. The FSF is political just like the RIAA and other such organisms. Their goal (and that of their supporters) is the open source, in the sense they understand it, and define it (using the GPL). All GPL code contributors understand this and they want it that way. I am not a particularly big supporter of the idea (nor of communism, which I know from extremely unfortunate personal experience from my old country). But it's the way the GPL is, and it works, and I will not tinker with it, or expect it to 'improve' in the direction of my goals. To whomever said 'I am NAL' in this thread, the conclusion is, that one I gave: If you do not have legal backing or legal funds do not mix the licenses. This does not mean do not dual license, it means, release with a license that matches that which you are releasing into/with. The famous last words 'my lawyer will fix it when it comes to it' is a $500 to open ended affair imho. That's pretty expensive for putting down a few words of one's own in a header file imho. BSD is out there and thriving. Whoever does not like GPL, have at it, but imho, remember that there will be NO legal recourse to 'recover' your code from the grasp of some company that will make a lot of money out of your altruistically released BSD licensed code. In fact, that's how the Unix source closure scandal started in the first place (notice that this dilemma is circular: (pre-BSD) open -> pigopolist grab -> p**d off developers -> GPL open -> p**d off developers want BSD open -> repeat -- learning the history of this thing *might* prevent a cycle repetition). Also remember that there are several large OS and embedded companies that fully support linux. Among them Monta Vista and VxWorks. They have their own distributions and they are not cheap. Judging by the number of cable and dsl modem boxes that run on Monta Vista Linux on mips 4* boards I'd say they are doing more than fine, and they more or less represent the 25% of the market that is not held by ARM. Also with the advent of the $25 end user cost DSL router, no licensed OS can compete with the free OSes. At that price level the box must cost about $10 to $15 at the factory gate. Try to think about how much of this could be spent on a license or royalties (about zero to $1 at most imho - and the $1 will be the first thing they will try to shave off since it will not require any upsetting of the production flow). The 'accident' that I linked to in the first message is more the exception than the rule, it was someone who blatantly took code and committed it as a diff patch no less. Peter P.

On 10/29/07, Peter P. <spamBeGoneplpeter2006spamBeGoneyahoo.com> wrote: > BSD is out there and thriving. Whoever does not like GPL, have at it, but imho, > remember that there will be NO legal recourse to 'recover' your code from the > grasp of some company that will make a lot of money out of your altruistically > released BSD licensed code. I believe GPL v2/v3 and BSD all have all its places. I just read the FreeBSD.org page about why to choose BSD license. There are some problems with the BSD distros that they have to use quite some GPLed packages (notably GCC for tool chain) but they stick to the rules that the kernel and some other critical sections are only using BSD style license. Linux distros can have BSD style licensed packages since it is compatible with GPL. This does give Linux a competitive advantage and apparently Linux is more successful in terms of popularity. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html Reference: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html Xiaofan

On 10/29/07, Peter P. <TakeThisOuTplpeter2006EraseMEspam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote: > Also with the advent of the $25 end user cost DSL router, no licensed OS can > compete with the free OSes. At that price level the box must cost about $10 to > $15 at the factory gate. Try to think about how much of this could be spent on > a license or royalties (about zero to $1 at most imho - and the $1 will be the > first thing they will try to shave off since it will not require any upsetting > of the production flow). > But Linksys choose to use smaller OS and not Linux and shed some cost on Flash with the WRT54G. WRT54GL is still selling well but it costs more. But I agree with you free OSes does have an advantage in many embedded applications. Windows CE 5/6 runtime now cost much less than before due to the competition from others, mainly from embedded Linux. Xiaofan

On 10/29/07, Peter P. <plpeter2006EraseME.....yahoo.com> wrote: > Neil Cherry <ncherry <at> comcast.net> writes: > > I currently don't know what to think of the GPL3. > > To understand what the GPL3 does you should read RMS's Brazil > speech, available as a transcript on the net. Specifically 'tivoisation', > which touches linux-on-hardware where it hurts the GPL community > most. If the information in that speech is correct, I think GPL V3 is not bad (even though the anti-DRM and anti-software-patent clauses have not been challenged and held in courts), espicailly for Desktop Software. RMS also mentioned GPL is not a good license for Documentation, so that GNU Free Documentation License is created for that. Maybe other software types need some other licenses.

On 11/4/07, Nate Duehr <EraseMEnatenatetech.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2007, at 10:04 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > > But Linksys choose to use smaller OS and not Linux and shed > > some cost on Flash with the WRT54G. WRT54GL is still selling > > well but it costs more. > > They switched to the VxWorks RTOS. > > From some rumors I read, people still came up with hacks to let you > load Linux on the hardware instead of buying the more expensive > WRT54GL "Linux" version. It seems to be supported by the dd-wrt Micro Edition. http://www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv2/index.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DD-WRT http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6352077661.html My WRT54G (free with 2 year Cable Online subscription along with a USB adapter and a Motorola Cable Modem) is of V2.2 so it is using Linux. But I do not think I want to risk of breaking it yet. Xiaofan