View Single Post
Old 31st July 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Default

Hello,

I think that it really depends on the creator of the code, and what they want to do with it that determines the license that is used. If the creator of the code doesn't want to share it, that is there prerogative. If the creator places it under GPL, that is there choice - don't complain about it, if you don't like that choice don't use their code. Same goes to those who license under BSD who get flak from the GPL folks (more on this below).

Some people code solely to get paid - there is nothing wrong with that, they are entitled to renumeration for their work. Some code solely to contribute to a project, it is almost (or in fact is) a hobby for them. Some want to contribute to FOSS, but are faced with the hard facts that they have to eat, too. I think the best solution to this is a dual license, like what Apache (and many others) do. Their attitude is that if you are using this for some free application, go ahead and use it - but, if you are making money off of my work, I want a piece of the action.

The biggest complaint I have heard from the GPL crowd against the BSD license is the so called 'advertising clause'. It reads in the license:

Code:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:

    This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
The first point is, if the GPL folks don't like that restriction, don't use the software - go write it yourself if you want the functionality so bad. Second, why complain, it is the original creators right to receive credit where credit is due if that is what they so choose. Some may not care about acknowledgment, or may wish to stay out of the limelight, or just simply contribute without need of any fame. That is their choice. Many others do want to be acknowledged for the contributions they have made - that is their choice, too.

The biggest complaint is that the clause requires the printing of names, and a full-fledge product - say a Linux distro or office suite - would need a full page ad to print them all. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice - but the way I read the clause, it only applies when the code is mentioned. For example, say their was a BSD licensed program that gave IPv6 functionality (call it sixip - a new Linux distro named Xunil has incorporated that program into their code base and wants to advertise in the Distro Daily newspaper. If they simply say - "Xunil - Linux for you", with a nice picture - there is no need of printing the advertising clause. But, if the add said - "Xunil, now with sixip", or "Xunil - Linux for you" and in the list of features it lists IPv6 - then the advertising clause would take effect.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote