Quote:
Originally Posted by flfederation
What (if anything) could have free software have done differently, to help out or be fairer to BSD? I'm expecting some pithy answers, that's alright. I might get some interesting answers too. Not here to debate the Free Software side of it-- I'm sure you've heard all that before. I'll continue researching this on my own time, of course.
|
The way you use the terms open source and free software with OpenBSD being open source and FSF representing free software isn't standard I think. You'll see across OpenBSD mailing lists people using either of the terms in describing their software. I see both used among Perl people too. I recall one developer pointedly using the term free software to describe non-copylefted free software, I supposed at the time as a way of expressing frustration with others claiming the definition or maybe as emphasizing that there are fewer conditions in his preferred licenses.
BSDs have been able to take video drivers from Linux without copylefting their code. This is the main way I think that those who generally prefer the GPL as their license can help the BSDs. It's expressed here in an old article by Egen Moblen on the CDDL
":The source trees of many GPL-licensed works, including the Linux kernel, contain files originally published by their authors under other free software licensing terms. In these cases, where the licenses involved are "permissive" licenses---such as a GPL-compatible BSD license, the MIT/X11 license or the equivalent---it can be said that GPLv2 section 2(b) is literally complied with, because those licenses permit the source code to be placed under other license terms, and those files are "relicensed" to GPL when they are included in the larger project's source tree. Though this is literally satisfactory from the GPL perspective, it raises equitable concerns of another kind. The improvements or modifications made to that code within the context of the GPL'd project can now not be picked up and used by the original projects or other downstream developers, unless they are prepared to place their entire work under GPL copyleft terms. This "traps" the improvements to the original contribution where they cannot be reused by the original contributors under their preferred terms. This is legitimate conduct on the part of the GPL-using project, but it unnecessarily deteriorates comity among free software developers. A better approach than the "relicensing" approach is to keep the files so employed within the GPL-licensed project's source tree with their additional licensing material intact, even when modified, so that if those files, or any parts thereof, are removed from the GPL'd project they can be reused under the original license, with the improvements made in the GPL'd context fully available under those terms. This is the official advice of SFLC to its GPL-using clients. "
In addition to BSD origin files they could look at cases tactically and see if making certains files available for the BSDs under a non-copyleft license might not be more worthwhile than their overriding preference that none of their code get used in proprietary software or be put in physical products (e.g. phones, IoT, etc.) where the customers can't get hold of the source or the necessary build tools to modify said products.
Otherwise I don't know. I like OpenBSD, NetBSD and GNU all quite well. It used to create a minor kind of identity conflict when reading or listening to BSD people express hostility and aggrevation towards GNU and the GPL license, but whatever. That kind of petty bickering is a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned. It matters little. Seems not as bad lately too.