DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic

Off-Topic Everything else.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
uptonm uptonm is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default motivations of bsd licensing

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJ View Post
This is in NO WAY an abuse of the BSD license. Indeed, it is the very idea of the BSD license. People develop under it to get their code used, and not to protect it behind some GNU nonsense.

One can argue that it would be "nice" to get more back (and that is mainly cash), but that is not the goal or the point. The point is to make good code that is used widely.

So there are no actions for which "they" can be held accountable.

Please set this idea aside.
this thread split as reqested by jggimi from http://www.daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=1545

perhaps i do not understand the bsd philosophy. i am actually an outsider commenting on a situation i don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jggimi View Post
There is nothing legally wrong with a company making billions of euros or dollars using BSD or ISC licensed software, as long as the license is adhered to. Without giving back anything to anyone. Some few do, most don't. But the freedoms granted by the license are just that ... freedoms.
thats fine and i have no problem with anybody making money, i think what i misunderstand was the intentions of bsd. i think now they seem to be code for the sake of code, not code for the sake of a community, or a chance to give without expecting to receive.

if that is your true philosophy, then there is no room for any bitterness about adobe not making flash available on the bsd desktop in light of adobe's use of bsd code.

i am also not saying this to begin an argument, but to better understand your philosophy.

anyone care to chat about the philosophy behind bsd?

Last edited by uptonm; 25th July 2011 at 07:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
ai-danno's Avatar
ai-danno ai-danno is offline
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 284
Thanked 35 Times in 31 Posts
Default

I will add in what I had in the post before it migrated here-

As far as goodwill is considered, I don't even think it's really that (as far as OBSD is concerned.) It's developed by developers that want to see a solidly coded OS. You want to use it, and not give anything back? That's fine, that's one of the big reasons for using a BSD license.

First rule of OBSD fight club- no one talks about the users.
Second rule of OBSD fight club- no one talks about the users.
Third rule of OBSD fight club- no one talks about the users.

When no one talks about the users, then the devs don't feel they're owed anything from them, nor do the devs feel they owe them anything. You, as a user, want something specific in OBSD? It's easy, become a developer, or pay one.

To get a better idea of "expectations", here's Theo's take on it.
__________________
Network Firefighter
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
ai-danno's Avatar
ai-danno ai-danno is offline
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Posts: 284
Thanked 35 Times in 31 Posts
Default

And to add, this philosophy (and a few others) are not shared completely amongst the three main BSD's. You may find a different take on the philosophies of different OS's (go figure!)
__________________
Network Firefighter
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptonm View Post
...there is no room for any bitterness about adobe not making flash available on the bsd desktop in light of adobe's use of bsd code.
Adobe does not use BSD code to my knowledge. It is more of a frustration, and not bitterness, that things like Flash and PDFs are supposed to be "universal" tools, in spite of their viewers being closed-source applications.

One would think that Adobe would then make available their tools on a wide variety of platforms. In reality, they don't: they support Windows and OS X, with some support for Linux and less so for Solaris. BSD is out in the cold. We think that is wrong, since it is a much-used OS. Adobe just disagrees.

The situation is better for PDFs, since a detailed specification on the file format is available, and viewers based on Poppler are getting much better.
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

The basic gist of it is, "We're developing this for ourselves, you can use it under our terms, but don't come crying if it causes a nuclear meltdown."

Companies can use it for proprietary reasons, but they have to include the licence in documentation.. quite a few proprietary companies stay around, or hire someone to monitor the situation, typically they'll contribute back.. but it's not a requirement.

http://www.daemonforums.org/showpost...4&postcount=27
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
uptonm uptonm is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJ View Post
Adobe does not use BSD code to my knowledge.


The Regents of the University of California are mentioned in the eula for flashplayer. Dunno that it means a bsd os but looks like bsd code. i dunno.

http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/t...y/flashplayer/

and i suppose in light of referring to the fight club rules, and understanding further the nature of the relationship of openbsd with its users in the link provided by ai-danno, my comment on bitterness in the users is further irrelevant i suppose. from what i gather the nature of the bsd community is vastly different from the gnu community. cool.

thats partly what i was trying to understand.

Last edited by uptonm; 25th July 2011 at 08:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
DrJ DrJ is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gold Country, CA
Posts: 506
Thanked 39 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uptonm View Post
The Regents of the University of California are mentioned in the eula for flashplayer. Dunno that it means a bsd os but looks like bsd code.
Well, yes then BSD code is used somewhere. That's news to me, but it is not really the issue. They are free to use it.

You may know that all of the BSD operating systems originate from the original UC Berkeley code, and since they do so, they have to include the Berkeley license. That's the deal.
Quote:
i suppose in light of referring to the fight club rules, and understanding further the nature of the relationship of openbsd with its users in the link provided by ai-danno, my comment on bitterness in the users is further irrelevant
Yes, it is. But do understand that Open is a bit more extreme than Free in this belief, and that it does not mean that the developers do not care about their product. For example, I have found the FreeBSD Gnome team to be extraordinarily responsive in all aspects about their interest. They do what they have to do, in an impressively fast and honest manner. It is just that the developers do what they are interested in, and no more. The same is true for Linux, BTW.
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
uptonm uptonm is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

thanks for the clarifications. i suppose i understand better now. after all is said and done, i suppose its not what the developers are seeking, but i want to say "thank you" to them, (if any are present here) and i really am grateful for being able to use their code to run my pc. i will purchase an openbsd cd soon as i can. i understand now i think the nature and philosophy of bsd.

develop a quality os for yourself. share with others because you want the code out there, limit time consuming support or endless feature requests from people who do not in the end have the right to these things since you're not here to please them, just to share what you've done.

like building a magnificent piece of work and sharing it because its easily duplicated at little or no cost to you. that's a good thing.

i can fully understand, appreciate and agree with that. again, thanks. it is a wonderful thing to use code of this quality with nothing expected in return.
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th July 2008
robbak's Avatar
robbak robbak is offline
Real Name: Robert Backhaus
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 366
Thanked 40 Times in 39 Posts
Default

For me, the whole idea of "Enforcing Freedoms" makes no sense. If you are enforcing something, you are removing freedoms.
If you want your code to be free, then dump it in the public domain. You cannot get free-er than that. BSD simply adds "don't patent this, don't sue me", which are reasonable restrictions.
Another philosophy behind BSD is 're-authoring code for any reason (apart from code quality, performance etc.) is a criminal waste of resources.' The BSD licence (often called "copycenter", as in "take it down to the copy center and do what you like with it.") ensures that anyone can use BSD code, and if BSD has done it, you do not need to re-do it. GPL restrictions mean that the code often has to be re-written for legal reasons. I think that is unfortunate.
Personally, I think that restricting use of code to other open-source projects is not a reasonable restriction, and largely negates the benefits of releasing source. But that is just me.
__________________
The only dumb question is a question not asked.
The only dumb answer is an answer not given.
Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
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
Old 31st July 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Berkeley retroactively removed that clause from the BSD code base, and NetBSD has also started removing those terms.

OpenBSD uses a slightly less verbose licence, updated to reflect some benefits of the Berne Convention:
Code:
/*
 * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
 * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
 */
See: /usr/share/misc/license.template

Last edited by BSDfan666; 31st July 2008 at 05:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
and NetBSD has also started removing those terms.
NetBSD licensing information can be found here - NetBSD Licensing and Redistribution

They took out both the advertising clause and the endorsement clause. Is it just me, or do those two clause seem to contradict each other - you must put our names in advertising, but you can't do that without our say so.

Personally, I don't need the fame - my name in the code is more than enough for me (even if I go dual license). I am fine with the current NetBSD license, though the endorsement clause would be good to prevent others from putting words in your mouth or having your name favorably attached to something you are against.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2008
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

http://www.osnews.com/story/19898/Ne...se_BSD_License
http://www.netbsd.org/about/redistri...tml#why2clause

I don't lie..

Last edited by BSDfan666; 31st July 2008 at 05:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2008
lvlamb's Avatar
lvlamb lvlamb is offline
Real Name: Louis V. Lambrecht
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: .be
Posts: 221
Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts
Default

GNU GPL'd people still have the "lesser" LGPL license available.
In essence, when a GNU-GPLd developer wants his code to be widely used, it will be made available under LGPL.

There is money to be made on support and development for FLOSS.
Same money on GPL2 "and above" (sic terms used nowadays), but you never know when a law firm will ground a grey unmarked helicopter with a bunch of men in black in your backyard.

Chances are that, when you develop code and provide it under ISC license (a k a "BSD two-term copyright") your code already has been discussed and improved on one of the many mailing lists, hence, have made your contribution to open source before even publishing the code.
Makes GPL2 look funny at best.
__________________
da more I know I know I know nuttin'
Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008
Werpon Werpon is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbak View Post
For me, the whole idea of "Enforcing Freedoms" makes no sense. If you are enforcing something, you are removing freedoms.
If you want your code to be free, then dump it in the public domain. You cannot get free-er than that. BSD simply adds "don't patent this, don't sue me", which are reasonable restrictions.
Another philosophy behind BSD is 're-authoring code for any reason (apart from code quality, performance etc.) is a criminal waste of resources.' The BSD licence (often called "copycenter", as in "take it down to the copy center and do what you like with it.") ensures that anyone can use BSD code, and if BSD has done it, you do not need to re-do it. GPL restrictions mean that the code often has to be re-written for legal reasons. I think that is unfortunate.
Personally, I think that restricting use of code to other open-source projects is not a reasonable restriction, and largely negates the benefits of releasing source. But that is just me.
What GPL achieves is avoiding anybody else to "lock" the code and to profit from it without giving anything back. I still remember how several months ago Theo deRaadt became so angry towards Linux distros and other vendors because they weren't giving anything back to OpenSSH. Well it's their prerogative according to the license.

In other words, the GPL seeks freedom for final users and developers, and achieves it with a greater success than the BSD license. Furthermore, most open source / free software developers prefer it (just count the successful projects). I think it has something to do with nobody else making a profit from your hard work, and I understand it.
Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008
ocicat ocicat is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,831
Thanked 190 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Werpon View Post
What GPL achieves is avoiding anybody else to "lock" the code and to profit from it without giving anything back.
Where is the GPL police who makes sure that any customizations/improvements are given back to the community? Oh, that's right; there isn't any...

Last edited by ocicat; 1st August 2008 at 08:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008
Werpon Werpon is offline
New User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocicat View Post
Where is the GPL police who makes sure that any customizations/improvements are given back to the community? Oh, that's right; there isn't any...
They're called gpl-violations.org and they are doing a fine job, thanks

Even if nobody policed licenses, that doesn't mean you should give away your code if you don't really want to, or take another people's code without permission.
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2008
JMJ_coder JMJ_coder is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 464
Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocicat View Post
Where is the GPL police who makes sure that any customizations/improvements are given back to the community? Oh, that's right; there isn't any...
I've heard that the FSF is itching for a big violation it can take to court to 'prove' the effectiveness of the GPL.
__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2008
ninjatux's Avatar
ninjatux ninjatux is offline
Real Name: Baqir Majlisi
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antarctica
Posts: 293
Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Werpon View Post
What GPL achieves is avoiding anybody else to "lock" the code and to profit from it without giving anything back. I still remember how several months ago Theo deRaadt became so angry towards Linux distros and other vendors because they weren't giving anything back to OpenSSH. Well it's their prerogative according to the license.

In other words, the GPL seeks freedom for final users and developers, and achieves it with a greater success than the BSD license. Furthermore, most open source / free software developers prefer it (just count the successful projects). I think it has something to do with nobody else making a profit from your hard work, and I understand it.
This reminds of Debian forums. You sound like a GNU zealot. GPL only keeps the original code free in the face of commercialization.
__________________
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity."
MacBook Pro (Darwin 9), iMac (Darwin 9), iPod Touch (Darwin 9), Dell Optiplex GX620 (FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE)
Reply With Quote
Old 3rd August 2008
Carpetsmoker's Avatar
Carpetsmoker Carpetsmoker is offline
Real Name: Martin
Old man from scene 24
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
Posts: 2,051
Thanked 198 Times in 156 Posts
Default

What exactly are the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3? And why won't projects like FreeBSD include GPLv3 code? I can't find any human-readable explanation, and personally I think it's easier to translate the complete works of Shakespeare to Chines than translate this lawyer talk to English.
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adobe drops most flash player licensing fees drhowarddrfine Off-Topic 7 18th October 2008 04:43 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick