|
|
|||
motivations of bsd licensing
Quote:
perhaps i do not understand the bsd philosophy. i am actually an outsider commenting on a situation i don't understand. Quote:
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. |
|
||||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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:
|
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Hello,
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) |
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"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) |
|
|||
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 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) |
|
|||
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. */ Last edited by BSDfan666; 31st July 2008 at 05:10 PM. |
|
|||
Hello,
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) |
|
||||
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' |
|
|||
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. |
|
||||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |