BSD License question
Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu
It is my understanding that a BSD (i.e. Berkeley-style) license is
freer than the GPL in the sense that you can use BSD code in anything
you write (commercial, free, etc.) and the only requirement is that you
recognize the copyright holders that you borrowed code from. With the
GPL on the other hand, you are required to make source code available
if you distribute a it (or a derivative).
Except for the advertising provision and the warranty, a BSD style
license looks basically like this (See
http://www.sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/LICENSES/bsd.license
for the whole thing):
# Copyright (c) <year>
# The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
# are met:
# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
# notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
# documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
The redistribution requirements (#1 and #2 above) make it sound like
you have to recognize the original copyright holders, but also maintain
the list of conditions. Is not one of the conditions maintained that
you can freely redistribute the software (whether in source or binary
form)? Doesn't this mean that a derivative work must also be made free
since the conditions also apply to it? I.e. if you make a derivative
work and sell it in binary form only, can't the person who bought it
freely distribute the binary he bought from you?
I believe the same argument would apply to the "MIT License" found
at http://www.sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/LICENSES/mit.license.
Please enlighten me as all discussion I have found on DejaNews fails
to address this one specific point. Also, if there is a more appropriate
newsgroup for this type of discussion, please let me know. Thanks.
--
Chris Ingram | Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu
After you've done your best, better than anyone else has ever done it, step
back and receive the thrill of a job well done. -S. Truett Cathy
Chris Adams
According to <Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu>:
># Copyright (c) <year>
># The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
>#
># Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
># modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
># are met:
># 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
># notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
># 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
># notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
># documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> The redistribution requirements (#1 and #2 above) make it sound like
>you have to recognize the original copyright holders, but also maintain
>the list of conditions. Is not one of the conditions maintained that
>you can freely redistribute the software (whether in source or binary
>form)? Doesn't this mean that a derivative work must also be made free
>since the conditions also apply to it? I.e. if you make a derivative
>work and sell it in binary form only, can't the person who bought it
>freely distribute the binary he bought from you?
The list of conditions never says that you have to distribute the
software. Distribution of the software is permitted if you follow the
list of conditions, but distribution of the software is not itself a
condition. The license doesn't really distinguish between source and
binary format except for the fact that source can directly contain the
copyright message, where binary has to reproduce it elsewhere. Nothing
requires you to distribute the software in either source or binary
format or ties the two together.
To the BSD style license, the difference between source and binary
formats is more like the difference between 3.5" and 5.25" floppies,
where to the GPL it is more like the source is a book and the binary is
the accompanying floppy, and you can't give the floppy to someone
without also giving them the book.
--
Chris Adams - cad...@ro.com
System Administrator - Renaissance Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Barry Margolin
In article <67et4v$fgl$1...@news.ro.com>, Chris Adams <cad...@ro.com> wrote:
>The list of conditions never says that you have to distribute the
>software.
The GPL never says that you have to distribute the software, either. The
main difference between the GPL and the BSD license is that BSD allows you
to distribute binary without source, while the GPL requires you to make
source available if you distribute binary. Both of them appear to be
infectious to derivative works.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
Please don't send technical questions directly to me, post them to newsgroups.
Chris Waters
Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu writes:
> It is my understanding that a BSD (i.e. Berkeley-style) license is
> freer than the GPL in the sense that you can use BSD code in anything
> you write.
No. You can't use BSD'd code in a GPL'd project, for example. So
neither the BSD nor the GPL can claim to be "more free" than the
other. They're "differently free". You also can't use code under
either license in public domain projects.
BSD is basically the same as PD, except for the copyright notice
requirement, which I, personally, find extremely stupid and annoying.
If I make a change to a BSD'd thing, I either have to add my name to
the copyright list (in which case, we could soon have hundreds, if not
thousands, of names which *must be listed on all documentation*), or I
can leave my name off, in which case, someone else gets the credit
for my work.
Now, if you just want to give your code away, and you don't want to
GPL it, because you want people to be able to use it in proprietary,
restricted distribution products, you can simply put it in the public
domain. You can still put your name on as the original author, and
there's every chance that your name will still be there on the
improved v. 6 years later. Plus, your code can be used in BSD'd
projects, GPL'd projects, and proprietary projects.
> # Copyright (c) <year>
> # The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Only if you want to give credit to the Regents of the UofC. If I were
to release my code under BSD license (ain't gonna happen, but *if*),
I'd substitute my name there. And that's where the problem starts...
> form)? Doesn't this mean that a derivative work must also be made free
> since the conditions also apply to it? I.e. if you make a derivative
> work and sell it in binary form only, can't the person who bought it
> freely distribute the binary he bought from you?
No. The restriction is that a binary you create must be accompanied
by the copyright notice of (all of the) copyright holder(s). There's
no other restriction *on the binaries.* In particular, there's
nothing forbidding you from licensing the binaries under any terms you
want.
Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
--
Chris Waters | The real problem with the the year 2000 is
cwa...@systems.DHL.COM | that there are too many zero bits and that
xt...@dsp.net (personal) | adversely affects the global bit density.
www.dsp.net/xtifr/ (web) | -- Boyd Roberts <bo...@france3.fr>
Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu
Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> shaped the electrons to say:
> Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu writes:
> > form)? Doesn't this mean that a derivative work must also be made free
> > since the conditions also apply to it? I.e. if you make a derivative
> > work and sell it in binary form only, can't the person who bought it
> > freely distribute the binary he bought from you?
> No. The restriction is that a binary you create must be accompanied
> by the copyright notice of (all of the) copyright holder(s). There's
> no other restriction *on the binaries.* In particular, there's
> nothing forbidding you from licensing the binaries under any terms you
> want.
> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
Well, actually, the restriction states that you must maintain the
copyright notices AND the list of conditions. That is my actual
question. If you maintain the list of conditions on derivative works
(or in the documentation in the case of binaries), and one of the
conditions is that you may copy the software, then how could anyone
ever create a proprietary commercial product that uses BSD-style
licensed software? Perhaps my question wasn't originally clear
enough.
I think that I am probably misinterpreting something since everyone
seems to have the same opinion as your last statement above. I am just
trying to understand why everyone is of that opinion when the wording
of the license seems to state otherwise.
John S. Dyson
In article <cko4t44...@systems.dhl.com>,
Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> writes:
>
> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
>
payment for use, is to maintain the Copyright and
conditions. This makes sure that the code does not
go PD (which it is not.) Also, it gives credit where
credit is due.
Basically, GPL code is PD code for the collective :-).
If you aren't a member of the collective, and follow
it's rules that force you do give away your work under
redistribution of binaries, then you don't get to use it.
Your work becomes an anonymous part of the collective,
and you are assimilated. :-).
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid,
jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
T.E.Dickey
In gnu.misc.discuss Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> wrote:
: Now, if you just want to give your code away, and you don't want to
: GPL it, because you want people to be able to use it in proprietary,
: restricted distribution products, you can simply put it in the public
: domain. You can still put your name on as the original author, and
: there's every chance that your name will still be there on the
: improved v. 6 years later. Plus, your code can be used in BSD'd
: projects, GPL'd projects, and proprietary projects.
of experience with one person who routinely rips off names that aren't
tied to copyrights associated with a lot of lawyers.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
dic...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
Michael Hohmuth
Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu writes:
> # Copyright (c) <year>
> # The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
> #
> # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> # modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> # are met:
> # 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> # 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> The redistribution requirements (#1 and #2 above) make it sound like
> you have to recognize the original copyright holders, but also maintain
> the list of conditions. Is not one of the conditions maintained that
> you can freely redistribute the software (whether in source or binary
> form)?
It's not a condition, it's a right the license grants.
> Doesn't this mean that a derivative work must also be made free
> since the conditions also apply to it? I.e. if you make a derivative
> work and sell it in binary form only, can't the person who bought it
> freely distribute the binary he bought from you?
No, because, unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't restrict you from
sub-licensing the software to a third party using a different license.
Michael
--
hoh...@require-re.ml.org
http://home.pages.de/~hohmuth/
Matt Dillon
:>In article <cko4t44...@systems.dhl.com>,
:> Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> writes:
:>>
:>> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
So, basically we are playing the label game again.. it's PD
so it must be substandard. Total and complete Bullshit.
:In article <67g5fk$s...@snews1.zippo.com>,
:John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
:>..
:>Basically, GPL code is PD code for the collective :-).
:>If you aren't a member of the collective, and follow
:>it's rules that force you do give away your work under
:>redistribution of binaries, then you don't get to use it.
:>Your work becomes an anonymous part of the collective,
:>and you are assimilated. :-).
:>
:>--
:>John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
WE ARE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. LOWER YOUR SHIELDS AND PREPARE
TO BE ASSIMILATED. YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNILOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS
WILL BE ADDED TO OUR OWN. YOU WILL BE MADE TO SERVE US.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
<dil...@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
do not under any circumstances send email to joe...@bigspender.idiom.com
and, for gods sake, don't email buck...@popserver.idiom.com
Barry Margolin
In article <7szplwn...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>,
Michael Hohmuth <hoh...@require-re.ml.org> wrote:
]Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu writes:
]
]> # Copyright (c) <year>
]> # The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
]> #
]> # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
]> # modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
]> # are met:
]> # 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
]> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
]> # 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
]> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
]> # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
]>
]> The redistribution requirements (#1 and #2 above) make it sound like
]> you have to recognize the original copyright holders, but also maintain
]> the list of conditions. Is not one of the conditions maintained that
]> you can freely redistribute the software (whether in source or binary
]> form)?
]No, because, unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't restrict you from
]sub-licensing the software to a third party using a different license.
I think I see what confused me. The sentence "Redistribution ... are
permitted..." is not actually part of the copyright notice or conditions
that must be retained. The conditions specify that you must include
certain information if you redistribute it, but they don't actually specify
the right to redistribute. The original BSD code gives that additional
right, but a sub-licensee can remove the "are permitted" sentence and still
obey the original license. The following statement in the documentation
would be in compliance:
Redistribution is not permitted, but if you do you must meet the following
conditions:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Albert D. Cahalan
>>>> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
>
> So, basically we are playing the label game again.. it's PD
> so it must be substandard. Total and complete Bullshit.
Nope, that was your idea. More correct: if you want to make
something totally free, then JUST DO IT and don't be an egomaniac.
You might as well make your code public domain if not GPL,
because the BSD licence offers nothing useful. All the BSD license
has is that annoying bit about credit for egomaniacs.
TonyP
In article <67h5q7$et0$1...@flea.best.net>, dil...@best.net says...
> :>In article <cko4t44...@systems.dhl.com>,
> :> Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> writes:
> :>>
> :>> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
>
> So, basically we are playing the label game again.. it's PD
> so it must be substandard. Total and complete Bullshit.
>
What is "PD"?!
Tony
TonyP
In article <slrn69oou...@stress.noc.demon.net>, h...@demon.net
says...
> Earlier, TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> > What is "PD"?!
>
> Public Domain.
>
> -Dom
Duh on my part. Thanks for the slap in the face Dom! (I think there's
another joke in there also. ;) )
Tony
Jordan K. Hubbard
Barry Margolin wrote:
> obey the original license. The following statement in the documentation
> would be in compliance:
>
> Redistribution is not permitted, but if you do you must meet the following
> conditions:
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Correct and, oddly enough, also the exact text of the "new FreeBSD
license", one we've agreed upon for new code not done by UCB. It
contains only the first 2 of the original 4 clauses since we think that
the stipulations for documentation are simply silly - I've been using a
2-clause version in all my own code for quite some time now.
--
- Jordan Hubbard
FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.
Bill Gribble
Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com> writes:
> And note that, in a modified BSD style license such as the
> Apache license, this gives protection to the name. The Apache license
> protects the Apache name by prohibiting joe luser from taking
> Apache, and selling it as "Apache". If he wants to take it an try
> to sell it as "MoronServer" he is free to do so. The Apache name,
> however, is given some level of protection.
IANAL, but I believe that only a trademark can give this type of
protection. If "Apache" is not trademarked, anyone can release a
software package and call it Apache.
Bill Gribble
Matt Dillon
:In article <MPG.f0634da3...@news.idt.net>,
:TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
:>In article <slrn69oou...@stress.noc.demon.net>, h...@demon.net
The legal definition of Public Domain basically means that anyone can
do anything whatsoever with the software. If you put something in
the public domain, someone else can rename it, remove the credits to
your authorship & name, and sell it. For something to be PD, the
author must explicitly state that it is PD.
'FreeWare' has a different (but non-legal) meaning that depends on the
automatic copyright you get even if you distribute your code without
any copyright notices. If you say nothing, but distribute the stuff
freely, your software is freeware rather then pd.
There are many shades of freeware... it all depends what you put in
the copyright statement. FreeBSD's copyright basically protects the
credit to the authors but otherwise gives one free reign.
Gnu Public Licence stuff (called 'GPL'), which most of Linux falls under,
basically allows anyone to use the software (including commercial
entities), but prohibits commercial entities from reselling or reusing
elements of the software for profit without permission.
Shareware is semi-commercial freeware. Basically, shareware is freely
distributed but the author's copyright/licence generally requests that
users who use the software for serious work pay for it. Paying for
shareware usually entails receiving an 'upgrade' or 'update' to the
software that adds additional functionality, but the basic premis of
Shareware ( verses demoware ) is that the original freely downloadable
package be truely useable.
Matt Dillon
:In article <vc7k9cz...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
:Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
:>dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
:>>>> Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> writes:
:>
:>>>>> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
:>>
:>> so it must be substandard. Total and complete Bullshit.
:>
:>something totally free, then JUST DO IT and don't be an egomaniac.
:>You might as well make your code public domain if not GPL,
Only a fool puts a major project in the public domain. I put a couple
of things here and there in the public domain (xmake, for example),
but most of the free stuff I do has a copyright. Ego has nothing to do
with it, just plain good sense.
Perhaps it is hard for a non-programmer or part-time programmer to
understand. A few lines of code here and there doesn't matter, but
a few thousand represents a significant investment of time and it's no
fun to see someone else rip it off and claim it as their own. Proper
accreditation is a cornerstone of the programmer's credo.
Dominic Mitchell
Public Domain.
-Dom
--
This posting does not represent the opinion of Demon Internet.
---- Work: h...@demon.net ---- Play: d...@myrddin.demon.co.uk ---- vv rone vv
"The OpenBSD/NetBSD split is more recent, but i wouldn't want to attribute
that to ego, because Theo might come down and split my skull with a rusty axe."
Bruce Jackson
> Nope, that was your idea. More correct: if you want to make
> something totally free, then JUST DO IT and don't be an egomaniac.
> You might as well make your code public domain if not GPL, because
> the BSD licence offers nothing useful. All the BSD license has is
> that annoying bit about credit for egomaniacs.
All the BSD license really does is prevent other people from claiming
that they wrote your code. I am aware of one rather large project
where before serious development began one of the developers
discovered that someone had already written a software package that
did almost exactly what was needed for the project and released it as
Public Domain software. Instead of developing their own package they
slightly modified the PD package and no credit was given to the author
of the original software; the developers claimed that they did the
whole thing. If the package was released under a BSD style license
they would have at least acknowledged the original developers. Not
wanting other people to be able to take your work and claim they wrote
it does not seem like egomania to me.
--
Bruce Jackson - Sr. Systems Programmer - The M/A/R/C Group
b.a.j...@ieee.org
Marc Slemko
>In article <vc7k9cz...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
>Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>> Nope, that was your idea. More correct: if you want to make
>> something totally free, then JUST DO IT and don't be an egomaniac.
>> You might as well make your code public domain if not GPL, because
>> the BSD licence offers nothing useful. All the BSD license has is
>> that annoying bit about credit for egomaniacs.
>All the BSD license really does is prevent other people from claiming
>that they wrote your code. I am aware of one rather large project
And note that, in a modified BSD style license such as the
Mike Jackson
In article <MPG.f061b8ed...@news.idt.net>,
anthonp...@mail.idt.net says...
>
>In article <67h5q7$et0$1...@flea.best.net>, dil...@best.net says...
>> :>In article <cko4t44...@systems.dhl.com>,
>> :>>
>> :>> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
>>
>> So, basically we are playing the label game again.. it's PD
>> so it must be substandard. Total and complete Bullshit.
>>
>> :John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>> :>..
>> :>Basically, GPL code is PD code for the collective :-).
>
>What is "PD"?!
>
>Tony
I dunno. Maybe Public Domain?
Mike
Marc Slemko
In <87wwgzf...@firetrap.csres.utexas.edu> Bill Gribble <gr...@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
>Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com> writes:
>> And note that, in a modified BSD style license such as the
>> Apache license, this gives protection to the name. The Apache license
>> protects the Apache name by prohibiting joe luser from taking
>> Apache, and selling it as "Apache". If he wants to take it an try
>> to sell it as "MoronServer" he is free to do so. The Apache name,
>> however, is given some level of protection.
>IANAL, but I believe that only a trademark can give this type of
>protection. If "Apache" is not trademarked, anyone can release a
>software package and call it Apache.
Sure, but they can't use the Apache code.
Albert D. Cahalan
dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
> Gnu Public Licence stuff (called 'GPL'), which most of Linux falls under,
> basically allows anyone to use the software (including commercial
> entities), but prohibits commercial entities from reselling or reusing
> elements of the software for profit without permission.
Nope, commercial entities may resell and reuse elements of the
software for profit without any permission beyond the GPL itself.
Somebody was selling a value-added Linux that made /usr just
a CD-ROM cache to reduce disk space. They didn't need to ask
anybody for permission to do that, and they made a profit.
David Kastrup
dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
> Gnu Public Licence stuff (called 'GPL'), which most of Linux
> falls under, basically allows anyone to use the software
> (including commercial entities), but prohibits commercial
> entities from reselling or reusing elements of the software for
> profit without permission.
Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
before you post what you think it might be about? The GPL explicitly
allows any commercial entity to resell and reuse elements of the
software for whatever profit they want without any explicit prior
permission required, as long as they adhere to the licence conditions,
most importantly making the source available in a certain way and
putting any derived work under the GPL, too.
In fact, this is one of the most important points of the GPL: leave
the whole distribution business to the free market (including free
pricing) in an entirely unproblematic way without major legal
greyzones (when does a profit start? what is at cost? etc.)
encumbering some other "non-commercial" licences, while at the same
time ensuring that a distribution has to obey certain standards
guaranteeing some fairness in the distribution competition and the
continued free availability of the software in the process.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
TonyP
In article <87wwgzf...@firetrap.csres.utexas.edu>, gr...@cs.utexas.edu
says...
> Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com> writes:
> > And note that, in a modified BSD style license such as the
> > Apache license, this gives protection to the name. The Apache license
> > protects the Apache name by prohibiting joe luser from taking
> > Apache, and selling it as "Apache". If he wants to take it an try
> > to sell it as "MoronServer" he is free to do so. The Apache name,
> > however, is given some level of protection.
>
> IANAL, but I believe that only a trademark can give this type of
> protection. If "Apache" is not trademarked, anyone can release a
> software package and call it Apache.
>
>
>
But I believe all one has to do is put the "tm" on it to make it so, btw.
I don't know if it has to appear on everything immediately.
Tony
TonyP
In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de says...
> continued free availability of the software in the process.
>
I wish you (GPL) guys would quit referring to "software" when what you
really mean is "source code". "Software", to most people, implies "for
the end _user_" while "source code" is something mainly developers are
interested in.
Tony
John S. Dyson
In article <vc7oh2b...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
> dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
>
>> Gnu Public Licence stuff (called 'GPL'), which most of Linux falls under,
>> basically allows anyone to use the software (including commercial
>> entities), but prohibits commercial entities from reselling or reusing
>> elements of the software for profit without permission.
>
> software for profit without any permission beyond the GPL itself.
>
> Somebody was selling a value-added Linux that made /usr just
> a CD-ROM cache to reduce disk space. They didn't need to ask
> anybody for permission to do that, and they made a profit.
>
you haven't modified (e.g. pure CDROM distributions.) If you start modifying
the GPLed code, your modifications, due to "derivative works" issues become
tainted with GPL. That, in essence, often has the effect that Matt is
alluding to. That is also the reason that GPLed code is often and should be
avoided for embedded work. (GPLed development tools don't cause such a
problem, except for compiler writers, etc. It isn't often that GCC has
to be hacked by the end user, OSes and drivers are another matter.)
In a strict way, the Linux kernel is a GPLed support subroutine package. Do
you want your code to be linked with proprietary interfaces to such a
package? Luckily, interpretations generally give relief for such usage
(userland programs), but I would be surprised if it has been tested. Using
Linux specific API's could cause problems, though.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
a...@muc.de
ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes:
> I have to agree with that. However, that is only true for software that
> you haven't modified (e.g. pure CDROM distributions.) If you start modifying
> the GPLed code, your modifications, due to "derivative works" issues become
> tainted with GPL. That, in essence, often has the effect that Matt is
> alluding to. That is also the reason that GPLed code is often and should be
> avoided for embedded work. (GPLed development tools don't cause such a
> problem, except for compiler writers, etc. It isn't often that GCC has
> to be hacked by the end user, OSes and drivers are another matter.)
I doubt that it is that a big problem to ship a $0.50 CD with the source
codes with the embedded product - that's probably less a problem than
to add a DIN A4 page with all the contributors to every sales brochure
just to comply with clause 3 of the BSD licence (and yes - I know of
cases where this prevented the use of BSD code in commercial applications).
>
> In a strict way, the Linux kernel is a GPLed support subroutine package. Do
> you want your code to be linked with proprietary interfaces to such a
> package? Luckily, interpretations generally give relief for such usage
> (userland programs), but I would be surprised if it has been tested. Using
> Linux specific API's could cause problems, though.
With the advent of linux emulators on FreeBSD/NetBSD/SCO/.. I doubt that it
is a problem - because the linux developers are very unlikely to claim
interface copyrights. So there are already a few implementations of the
'Linux API'. 86open will finally kill this issue.
And the user level interfaces are mostly under the LGPL anyways
(except for a few bad exceptions, e.g. gdbm, but there are good
replacements for it).
-A.
Bill Gribble
anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP) writes:
> > IANAL, but I believe that only a trademark can give this type of
> > protection. If "Apache" is not trademarked, anyone can release a
> > software package and call it Apache.
>
> I don't know if it has to appear on everything immediately.
In the US, at least, (tm) has no legal status. It's only a convention
used to mark trademarks that are in the process of being registered
but aren't yet official, or for non-federally-registered trademarks
(i.e. state trademarks). It might have status in individual states
with respect to that state's trademarks; I don't know. The official
mark of a federally registered trademark is (R).
Bill Gribble
John S. Dyson
In article <mo7vhwi...@hp21.lrz-muenchen.de>,
a...@muc.de writes:
> ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes:
>
>> I have to agree with that. However, that is only true for software that
>> you haven't modified (e.g. pure CDROM distributions.) If you start modifying
>> the GPLed code, your modifications, due to "derivative works" issues become
>> tainted with GPL. That, in essence, often has the effect that Matt is
>> alluding to. That is also the reason that GPLed code is often and should be
>> avoided for embedded work. (GPLed development tools don't cause such a
>> problem, except for compiler writers, etc. It isn't often that GCC has
>> to be hacked by the end user, OSes and drivers are another matter.)
>
> I doubt that it is that a big problem to ship a $0.50 CD with the source
> codes with the embedded product - that's probably less a problem than
> to add a DIN A4 page with all the contributors to every sales brochure
> just to comply with clause 3 of the BSD licence (and yes - I know of
> cases where this prevented the use of BSD code in commercial applications).
>
GPL. That is the taint of inventions made that incorporate GPLed code.
That $0.50 or $0.005 doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. It is
the proprietary ideas that have to be exposed (GPL taint). That is
why GPL will never fully take over the market. That is the reason
for the existance of free software, instead of GPL.
>
> With the advent of linux emulators on FreeBSD/NetBSD/SCO/.. I doubt that it
> is a problem - because the linux developers are very unlikely to claim
> interface copyrights. So there are already a few implementations of the
> 'Linux API'. 86open will finally kill this issue.
>
What? You acknowledge we fully comply with all of the API, even the
proprietary parts? THANKS!!!
J Wunsch
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> Redistribution is not permitted, but if you do you must meet the following
>> conditions:
> Correct and, oddly enough, also the exact text of the "new FreeBSD
> license", ...
Uh-oh, no, Jordan, you missed the joke. The above sentence says
``Redistribution is *not* permitted,...''. ;-)
(Of course, it's pointless to add a conditional clause then in case
someone redistributes it nevertheless.)
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_...@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Andreas Jellinghaus
bsd licence is the free licence for optimists :
it doesn't contain restrictions (except keeping credits without
mis-using them). men are good and even if some people will do bad things
with the software, that is not a reason for restrictions.
gpl licence is the free licence for pessimists :
the world is bad, behind every door is someone who will do bad things
with your software. gpl'ed software is free but has a maximum of
restrictions on them to protect the free status.
a good solution might be somewhere in the middle. bsd licence allows
people too much (like changeing the bsd licence to gpl), and gpl
restricts to much (e.g. if you have a gpl'ed programs that works fine
with lesstif, you may not link it with motif).
but i prefer bsd : world isn't that bad, there is no need to be paranoid.
andreas
J Wunsch
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
> before you post what you think it might be about?
Well, that's perhaps what proves to be the most tricky part about GPL:
you can read it many times, but you're never completely sure what all
this is about.
> The GPL explicitly
> allows any commercial entity to resell and reuse elements of the
> software for whatever profit they want ...
Are you 100 % sure about this? I'm not a lawyer, and English ain't my
native language, but let's see:
``2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:''
[Ok, they are not of interest here. There's an explicit reference to
the terms in section 1, and the word `also', indicating that section 1
always needs to be obeyed, whether your work is derivative or not.]
``1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that''
[Remainder not that interesting for our discussion, skipt to next
paragraph.]
``You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.''
This doesn't sound to me like you could charge an arbitrary fee for
whatever derivative work you're offering, beyond what could be
considered reasonable copy costs, or beyond money you could demand for
some form of warranty.
So where's the terms allowing you to resell it ``for whatever
profit''?
Beyond the terms of the GPL, i've recently heard that someone who
contributed something to Emacs has been forced by RMS to disclaim any
copyright of his own on that part, and this disclaimer even needs to
be send by fax and/or snail mail... Ick. (RMS refuses to accept it
otherwise.) I wouldn't be very happy about this (and no, please don't
bomb me with the reasoning, i basically know it).
David Kastrup
I must say I got pretty angry by the following response. You cut
sentences of mine off in the middle, giving wrong meanings, and you
quote sections of the GPL out of context that do not apply to the case
you discuss. Your proposed desire to get at the "truth" is not very
well served.
j...@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) writes:
> David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
> > Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
> > before you post what you think it might be about?
>
> Well, that's perhaps what proves to be the most tricky part about GPL:
> you can read it many times, but you're never completely sure what all
> this is about.
I recommend that you just read it once, and in context, for starters.
>
> > The GPL explicitly
> > allows any commercial entity to resell and reuse elements of the
> > software for whatever profit they want ...
and then you cut off the quote which would have mentioned provided
that they adhere to certain restrictions, mostly *effectively*
delivering the source with the binaries and distributing any derived
work only of covered by the GPL as well.
>
> Are you 100 % sure about this? I'm not a lawyer, and English ain't my
> native language, but let's see:
>
> ``2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:''
>
> [Ok, they are not of interest here. There's an explicit reference to
> the terms in section 1, and the word `also', indicating that section 1
> always needs to be obeyed, whether your work is derivative or not.]
Oh yes, they are of interest. They concern the restrictions you have
almost libellously cut off from your quote of my post.
>
> ``1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
> source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that''
>
> [Remainder not that interesting for our discussion, skipt to next
> paragraph.]
>
> ``You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.''
>
> This doesn't sound to me like you could charge an arbitrary fee for
> whatever derivative work you're offering, beyond what could be
> considered reasonable copy costs, or beyond money you could demand for
> some form of warranty.
Wrong. You can demand whatever fee you want (there is no mentioning
about a limit here, or that your fee must be based on your actual
costs). The licence just makes clear that it does not transfer any
ownership rights to the source code to you, or to customers of you.
Look into any commercial licences: they don't sell you any ownership,
either, but just grant you use of it.
> Beyond the terms of the GPL, i've recently heard that someone who
> contributed something to Emacs has been forced by RMS to disclaim any
> copyright of his own on that part, and this disclaimer even needs to
> be send by fax and/or snail mail... Ick. (RMS refuses to accept it
> otherwise.) I wouldn't be very happy about this (and no, please don't
> bomb me with the reasoning, i basically know it).
If you feel it necessary to mention this in order to confuse others on
the newsgroup, you can hardly demand that nobody explains what is
really up.
Yes, for certain key ingredients of the GNU project, you need to sign
a waiver giving the FSF rights to your sourcecode, and have some paper
by your employer signed as well. This is because only a copyright
holder (or something to that kind) of software may sue for breach of
licence (such as GPL), and for key parts of the GNU system the FSF
wants to retain the necessary legal preconditions for being able to
enforce the GPL in court.
In addition, the FSF needs to make sure that the one handing them
software presumably under GPL is indeed entitled to doing so. There
*have* been cases already where some employee of some software outlet
gave some code for embedding into Emacs, and later the employer made a
fuss because he was not allowed to do so. It was one big mess to get
the code out again.
So by now the FSF is pretty careful about accepting contributions to
code for which it holds the copyright and wants to be able to enforce
it. What other copyright holders of GPL software do in order to keep
their stuff legally clean, is their business.
Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu
Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> shaped the electrons to say:
] In article <7szplwn...@os.inf.tu-dresden.de>,
] Michael Hohmuth <hoh...@require-re.ml.org> wrote:
] ]Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu writes:
] ]
] ]> # Copyright (c) <year>
] ]> # The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
] ]> #
] ]> # Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
] ]> # modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
] ]> # are met:
] ]> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
] ]> # 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
] ]> # notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
] ]> # documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
] ]>
] ]> The redistribution requirements (#1 and #2 above) make it sound like
] ]> you have to recognize the original copyright holders, but also maintain
] ]> the list of conditions. Is not one of the conditions maintained that
] ]> you can freely redistribute the software (whether in source or binary
] ]> form)?
] ]No, because, unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't restrict you from
] ]sub-licensing the software to a third party using a different license.
] I think I see what confused me. The sentence "Redistribution ... are
] permitted..." is not actually part of the copyright notice or conditions
] that must be retained. The conditions specify that you must include
] certain information if you redistribute it, but they don't actually specify
] the right to redistribute. The original BSD code gives that additional
] right, but a sub-licensee can remove the "are permitted" sentence and still
] obey the original license. The following statement in the documentation
] would be in compliance:
] Redistribution is not permitted, but if you do you must meet the following
] conditions:
] 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
] notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
] 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
] notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
] documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Thanks, guys. These two posts are about the most useful answers to
my original question that I have seen. Somehow, the other discussion
has diverged greatly. Basically with a BSD style licensee, every part
of the original license must me copied on derivative works except the
lines:
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
# are met:
These lines are not part of the copyright message, are not part of the
list of conditions, and are certainly not part of the warranty that
must be maintained on derivative works. They are simply the rights
given to use the software.
Thanks for your help in this matter. I think it is clear now. I
am in the process of writing a POP Biff program in Java, and I wanted
to release it under something freer than the GPL, but still maintain
my copyright. A BSD style license seems to be what I am looking for.
--
Chris Ingram | Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu
After you've done your best, better than anyone else has ever done it, step
back and receive the thrill of a job well done. -S. Truett Cathy
Albert D. Cahalan
a...@dungeon.inka.de (Andreas Jellinghaus) writes:
> a good solution might be somewhere in the middle. bsd licence
> allows people too much (like changeing the bsd licence to gpl),
You can't change the traditional BSD licence to GPL because
the GPL prohibits what the BSD licence requires: the credit in
product documentation. The GPL prohibits additional restrictions,
which does not sit well with egomaniacs. Isn't it enough that
your name is in the source code?
> and gpl restricts to much (e.g. if you have a gpl'ed programs
> that works fine with lesstif, you may not link it with motif).
You can link with motif, since that falls under the exception
for operating system components. It is considered the same as libc.
> but i prefer bsd : world isn't that bad, there is no need to be paranoid.
I notice that gcc has Objective C support and FreeBSD does
not have _many_ SunOS features. Linux has gained many features
from commercial use, though without threat of lawsuit yet.
Why the GPL exists: When the GPL was originally written,
free software was going 100% commercial at an alarming rate.
Imagine what your reaction would be if all the core FreeBSD
developers decided to go 100% commercial with some great new
feature. Crazy? That kind of event has actually happened,
which is why the GPL exists.
Felix Schroeter
Hello!
In article <67j6c2$p...@uriah.heep.sax.de>,
J Wunsch <joerg_...@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote:
>[...]
>Beyond the terms of the GPL, i've recently heard that someone who
>contributed something to Emacs has been forced by RMS to disclaim any
>copyright of his own on that part, and this disclaimer even needs to
>be send by fax and/or snail mail... Ick. (RMS refuses to accept it
>otherwise.) I wouldn't be very happy about this (and no, please don't
>bomb me with the reasoning, i basically know it).
Been there, done that.
I ported Emacs (I believe 19.19 or 19.25) to arm-acorn-riscix1.2
and submitted the diffs. The single result was that I should sign
a copyright disclaimer form and submit it via snailmail.
That was too much of hassle for me, so the next release of Emacs
still didn't have an arm-acorn-riscix1.2 port. (If Emacs has that
now, it came from someone else.)
Regards, Felix.
Felix Schroeter
Hello!
In article <vc7afdu...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>[...]
>Why the GPL exists: When the GPL was originally written,
>free software was going 100% commercial at an alarming rate.
>Imagine what your reaction would be if all the core FreeBSD
>developers decided to go 100% commercial with some great new
>feature. Crazy? That kind of event has actually happened,
>which is why the GPL exists.
So what? The effect to the public (free software world) is just the
same as if the core team just ceased to work. And the same way, the
Linux developers could cease to work.
In both cases, others could (and probably would) take the last free
release to continue the free development.
Regards, Felix.
Matt Dillon
My GPL reference was for a commercial entity who incorporates (modifies)
GPLd code into a product and then sells the product. I am not talking
about a simple CD redistribution, I'm talking about the commercial entity
selling a product for much greater then the cost of media that is
based on GPLd code.
Specifically, read section 2b:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
That would seem to preclude use of GNU code incorporated into a
commercial product. Embedded, that is. I'm talking about a situation
that is different from including GNU utilities verbatim in a larger
distribution (such as RedHat).
I'm talking about... lets see. say you have GNU C and you modify it to
better optimize the pentium output. You can't sell that under the GPL
unless you allow free redistribution and include the source. I'm talking
about a situation where you do not wish to redistribute the source.
I'm not saying that GPL is wrong... I think GPL is great in many, many
situations. I'm just defending my prior summary posting :-). However,
my personal bent focuses on keeping MS at bay or, at the very least,
honest. I believe that something like FreeBSD will get more penetration
then linux specifically because it is not GPLd. The workstation wars
are only a small part of the equation, I consider the embedded, OEM,
and VAR markets to be as important or possibly even more important.
linux has the portability (though not as good as NetBSD), but portability
is often irrelevant... intel-compatible motherboards / processors are just
too cheap.
It is very easy to run something like FreeBSD or Linux as a core for an
embedded product. GPL gets in the way of that, though, so I think FreeBSD
is more suited to the OEM and VAR market. There are lots of little
companies already using FreeBSD or NetBSD or something similar for this
very purpose... exposure is the only problem. Most of these companies
have smart engineers in their R&D departments and when they realize that
they can get an OS core that is not only fully internet-capable, but
has a major-ass GUI (X plus a good window manager plus tk/perl/jdk/other),
takes 1/4 the memory footprint of NT and 1/10 the disk storage, and is
more efficient and more reliable, only a fool would go with their own
proprietary development and only an utter fool would sell their soul to
microsoft.
Matt Dillon
:In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
:David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
:>dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
:>
:>> Gnu Public Licence stuff (called 'GPL'), which most of Linux
:>> falls under, basically allows anyone to use the software
:>> (including commercial entities), but prohibits commercial
:>> profit without permission.
:>
:>Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
:>before you post what you think it might be about? The GPL explicitly
:>allows any commercial entity to resell and reuse elements of the
:>permission required, as long as they adhere to the licence conditions,
:>most importantly making the source available in a certain way and
:>putting any derived work under the GPL, too.
I would argue that GPL does not really work with a commercial entity,
at least not on a large scale. I think it would work ok on a small
scale. I think that large commercial entities such as Oracle would have
a hard time using GPLd code in any of their products.
The GNU licence, from section 1:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
And from 2b:
"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."
What these clauses mean is clear: You can offer warranty protection
for a fee (any fee), you can charge for the cost of media, but you CANNOT
prevent people from redistributing your system to their friends for free.
You can charge anything for the warranty, but the fact that you have no
protection against redistribution effectively limits the potential
commercial success because anyone can legally copy your work and sell it
himself under the same terms after purchasing only a single copy from
you.
This puts GPLd software squarely in the middle ground between freeware
and commercialware, because the whole point of going commercial is to
make a profit and GPL only provides for limited profits. Why? becuase
of the automatic competition that occurs as you grow and the fact that
there can be no relicencing/reseller agreement for any price (it must
be free), competition will inherently limit the amount of money you can
charge and the breadth of your immediate distribution.
This makes GPL singularly unsuitable for most commercial entities. The
shareware route is much better, in fact, because you retain more of your
copyrights and can shift new versions of your product from what is
essentially freeware to essentially commercial without any entanglements.
You will notice that I didn't even mention section 3 which talks about
having to make the source, including changes you have made, available
for free. That's another nail in the coffin, for sure, but 2b alone
will be the death of any commercial use.
Again, I am not saying that GPL is bad, just that it does exactly what
the FSF intended... and the FSF did not intend for GPLd code to enter
a 100% commercial realm. Most commercial companies make their money
(profit, employee pay, and so on) from the distribution, so making the
distribution essentially free makes GPL unsuitable if you intend to take
your company and make it large.
Tim Smith
Bill Gribble <gr...@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> And note that, in a modified BSD style license such as the
>> Apache license, this gives protection to the name. The Apache license
>> protects the Apache name by prohibiting joe luser from taking
>> Apache, and selling it as "Apache". If he wants to take it an try
>> to sell it as "MoronServer" he is free to do so. The Apache name,
>> however, is given some level of protection.
>
>protection. If "Apache" is not trademarked, anyone can release a
>software package and call it Apache.
Yes, but that is not what they are trying to stop. They are trying to
stop people from selling modified or repackaged versions of their Apache
program under the name Apache. People who want to modify or repackage have
to come up with a different name.
--Tim Smith
TonyP
In article <87wwgyh...@firetrap.csres.utexas.edu>, gr...@cs.utexas.edu
says...
>
> In the US, at least, (tm) has no legal status. It's only a convention
> used to mark trademarks that are in the process of being registered
> but aren't yet official, or for non-federally-registered trademarks
> (i.e. state trademarks). It might have status in individual states
> with respect to that state's trademarks; I don't know. The official
> mark of a federally registered trademark is (R).
>
registration" is optional and that "tm" was all that was necessary.
That's what I remember anyway.
Tony
robert havoc pennington
dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
>
> This puts GPLd software squarely in the middle ground between
> freeware and commercialware, because the whole point of going
> commercial is to make a profit and GPL only provides for limited
> profits. Why? becuase of the automatic competition that occurs
> as you grow and the fact that there can be no
> relicencing/reseller agreement for any price (it must be free),
> competition will inherently limit the amount of money you can
> charge and the breadth of your immediate distribution.
>
You're being very limited. The GPL only allows for small
*distribution* profits. But there are many other ways to make a
profit.
> This makes GPL singularly unsuitable for most commercial
> entities. The shareware route is much better, in fact, because
> you retain more of your copyrights and can shift new versions of
> your product from what is essentially freeware to essentially
> commercial without any entanglements.
>
Only better for distribution companies (or individuals who profit by
distribution). If you make money from something other than just
licensing the software, the GPL is no barrier at all.
> You will notice that I didn't even mention section 3 which talks
> about having to make the source, including changes you have
> made, available for free. That's another nail in the coffin,
> for sure, but 2b alone will be the death of any commercial use.
>
It's an *advantage* for companies selling integrated solutions and
support. They can tout all the advantages of free software, and really
set things up nicely for a company, since there are so many free
packages. Lots of companies would be better off spending their money
on software *services* rather than software *licenses*.
> Again, I am not saying that GPL is bad, just that it does
> exactly what the FSF intended... and the FSF did not intend for
> GPLd code to enter a 100% commercial realm. Most commercial
> companies make their money (profit, employee pay, and so on)
> from the distribution, so making the distribution essentially
> free makes GPL unsuitable if you intend to take your company and
> make it large.
>
They didn't intend it to enter the proprietary realm. They'd love it
to enter the commercial realm, and it often does.
There's no reason companies have to make all their money from
distribution, that's just the habit they've gotten into, and it's a
bad habit from the customer's point of view.
Seems to me that it'd be a good business setting up very nice custom
information services for customers, using free software. There are a
million reasons why customers would be better off with free software
running their company - you'd just have to convince them.
Havoc Pennington
Frank Crary
In article <67fe2l$7...@smash.gatech.edu>,
<Chris....@gtri.gatech.edu> wrote:
>> No. The restriction is that a binary you create must be accompanied
>> by the copyright notice of (all of the) copyright holder(s). There's
>> no other restriction *on the binaries.* In particular, there's
>> nothing forbidding you from licensing the binaries under any terms you
>> want.
> Well, actually, the restriction states that you must maintain the
>copyright notices AND the list of conditions. That is my actual
>question. If you maintain the list of conditions on derivative works
>(or in the documentation in the case of binaries), and one of the
>conditions is that you may copy the software, then how could anyone
>ever create a proprietary commercial product that uses BSD-style
>licensed software?
From memory, the text includes a statement that the code _includes_
software developed by the University of California. As I understand
it, the conditions about distribution and reuse only apply to the
mentioned portions of the code (i.e. the parts developed by the
University of California.) Anything you add isn't covered by these
conditions, so you can keep your additions proprietary.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Frank Crary
In article <67g5fk$s...@snews1.zippo.com>,
John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>> Basically, BSD code is PD code for egomaniacs. :-)
>I disagree with that. Think of it this way: the
>payment for use, is to maintain the Copyright and
>conditions. This makes sure that the code does not
>go PD (which it is not.) Also, it gives credit where
>credit is due.
I think there is another important aspect of the conditions. Last time
I checked, the text that must be retained also includes a disclaimer.
If I were distributing free code, I'd want a line in it saying that I can't
be sued if the code doesn't work as advertised. And I'd want that
disclaimer in the code no matter how many times it was redistributed.
I'm fairly sure the University of California's lawyers would feel the
same way.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Marc Slemko
Nothing, including a trademark, gives you protection except either
bunches of highly payed lawyers, lots of media attention and
public opinion or a (or many) court decision(s).
Tradmark rights are based on either registration of or use of a
trademark. Registration does not confirm right to use, only
the courts can do that. Different organizations can have legimite
rights to the same trademark at the same time.
Anyone can use TM or SM designations; all they do is represent a
claim to the trademark or service mark.
The (R) (not "(R)", but R in a circle) symbol can only be used after a
trademark is registered. That still does not mean that no one else
can use that trademark or even that the organization who has it
registered is not infringing on someone elses's trademark.
As always, IANAL.
John S. Dyson
In article <vc7afdu...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
>
>> a good solution might be somewhere in the middle. bsd licence
>> allows people too much (like changeing the bsd licence to gpl),
>
> You can't change the traditional BSD licence to GPL because
> the GPL prohibits what the BSD licence requires: the credit in
> product documentation. The GPL prohibits additional restrictions,
> which does not sit well with egomaniacs. Isn't it enough that
> your name is in the source code?
>
restrict commercial uses of code, because they are afraid of people
who might make a profit on IP, as opposed to profit on labor (being
a slave?) Which license does that? :-).
Most often, the above is the type of argument that I find that people
use GPL. I am not afraid of people who might modify and profit from my
work, in fact it is a good thing. GPL pretty much limits people to making
profit on support labor or pure redistribution. I thought that we had
advanced from a piece-work economy or economy based upon only human labor.
A pure "service economy" is a house-of-cards, and subject to very rapid
deflation. A service business is supported by other businesses with
assets, otherwise what is the basis of value?
You might take exception to my comment about "rapid deflation", by giving
as examples, movie stars, ball players, etc. How many of them suffer
"rapid deflation" even if they have been successful at one time or another?
(Answer, most of them.) None of us is in the pay category of the successful
actor (easily >$1M), and I dare say that the risk/reward benefit isn't there
for us.
So, licenses that don't support and foster software being a capital asset
of some sort, force us into the support (slave) economy when we adopt
usage of such. I think that this is the basis of some people saying that
GPL being some kind of socialistic document (and I tend to agree.)
Nix
In article <67jqdu$e...@rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Felix Schroeter <uk...@rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
> Hello!
`plugh'. flobble.
> In article <vc7afdu...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
> Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >Why the GPL exists: When the GPL was originally written,
> >free software was going 100% commercial at an alarming rate.
Got any examples? (Not out of malice or anything, I'm just interested.
I wasn't around in any meaningful form in '84-or-whenever-it-was. (Few
eight-year-olds are great Unix buffs. :) )
> >Imagine what your reaction would be if all the core FreeBSD
> >developers decided to go 100% commercial with some great new
> >feature. Crazy? That kind of event has actually happened,
> >which is why the GPL exists.
>
> So what? The effect to the public (free software world) is just the
> same as if the core team just ceased to work. And the same way, the
> Linux developers could cease to work.
They could?
Bloody hell. If you can get a huge disparate group of people like the
Linux developers, whose single common feature is probably that they like
working on Linux, to *stop* working on Linux, you can probably stop the
sun in the sky. Or, for example (not suggesting anything here, oh no)
get everyone in Karlsruhe to send me 10 DM for, er, `services to
humanity'... ;)))
> In both cases, others could (and probably would) take the last free
> release to continue the free development.
Now *that* I agree with. I just think it's bloody unlikely you could get
the huge number of people hacking on Linux to stop; and I rather doubt
that something nasty like Linus being hit by a car or Transmeta being
obliterated by an asteroid could stop Linux anymore... it's got a momentum
of its own now. (This is one advantage of a huge distributed development
team; it prevents what I like to call the `OS/2 syndrome' (although the
Multics syndrome or the VMS syndrome are equally good names for it). Do
the *BSD projects have that advantage? I imagine they do... but I don't
know (because I haven't bothered to find out :)
Systems with no centre are powerful. Hang on, I'm using a couple to say
this, aren't I?)
--
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of
science, 1949
Leslie Mikesell
>> and gpl restricts to much (e.g. if you have a gpl'ed programs
>> that works fine with lesstif, you may not link it with motif).
>
>You can link with motif, since that falls under the exception
>for operating system components. It is considered the same as libc.
Is this exception specified anywhere in the license document or is
it just an interpretation? As we all know, motif is not *really*
an operating system component and it is certainly not free, so it
seems very strange that you should be allowed to distribute a
GPL'ed binary containing those bits to people who can't legally
rebuild from source.
>I notice that gcc has Objective C support and FreeBSD does
>not have _many_ SunOS features. Linux has gained many features
>from commercial use, though without threat of lawsuit yet.
What features? Are there Linux binaries that don't run under FreeBSD?
>Why the GPL exists: When the GPL was originally written,
>free software was going 100% commercial at an alarming rate.
>Imagine what your reaction would be if all the core FreeBSD
>developers decided to go 100% commercial with some great new
>feature.
My reaction would be: "Great, I can't wait to see what new functionality
is being added to make it worth more than the free version that is
still available".
>Crazy?
No, I like having a choice of new features, even if I choose not to
buy them.
>That kind of event has actually happened,
>which is why the GPL exists.
And that reason was???
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Barry Margolin
In article <67ju7u$11l$1...@flea.best.net>, Matt Dillon <dil...@best.net> wrote:
> This puts GPLd software squarely in the middle ground between freeware
> and commercialware, because the whole point of going commercial is to
> make a profit and GPL only provides for limited profits. Why? becuase
> of the automatic competition that occurs as you grow and the fact that
> there can be no relicencing/reseller agreement for any price (it must
> be free), competition will inherently limit the amount of money you can
> charge and the breadth of your immediate distribution.
I haven't seen many car dealerships closing down their repair facilities
because of the competition from independent service stations. Why should
competition from other distribution and maintenance organizations be so bad
in the software world, while it's OK in other industries? If you want
people to use your distribution or maintenance service rather than someone
else's, make yours better -- don't depend on artificial monopolies to
protect you.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
Please don't send technical questions directly to me, post them to newsgroups.
Barry Margolin
In article <MPG.f06c8bad...@news.idt.net>,
The GPL ensures free availability of *both* the source and executable code
of the work and all derivatives.
Barry Margolin
In article <67jr90$pgo$1...@flea.best.net>, Matt Dillon <dil...@best.net> wrote:
> I'm talking about... lets see. say you have GNU C and you modify it to
> better optimize the pentium output. You can't sell that under the GPL
> unless you allow free redistribution and include the source. I'm talking
> about a situation where you do not wish to redistribute the source.
So the assumption you're making is that commercial == "without allowing
free redistribution and without making source code available", i.e. your
definition of commercial is virtually the opposite of GPL. Clearly, that
definition prohibits incorporation of GPL code into commercial software.
That's the breaks. You have your choice of spending a few man-weeks
modifying GNU C and then making your result available under GPL (you
probably don't need megasales to recoup this investment), or spending
man-years implementing a C compiler from scratch so you can restrict
redistribution. But by the time you finish the latter product it might be
obsolete or there will be other competition, so you might not make back
your investment, even though you're allowed to sell it "commercially".
Barry Margolin
In article <67is1g$b...@uriah.heep.sax.de>,
J Wunsch <joerg_...@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote:
>(Of course, it's pointless to add a conditional clause then in case
>someone redistributes it nevertheless.)
I've seen copyright notices in trade secret source code, intended to apply
in the case of accidental disclosure.
Matt Dillon
:In article <67mln7$1...@tools.bbnplanet.com>,
:Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
:>In article <67ju7u$11l$1...@flea.best.net>, Matt Dillon <dil...@best.net> wrote:
:>> This puts GPLd software squarely in the middle ground between freeware
:>> and commercialware, because the whole point of going commercial is to
:>> make a profit and GPL only provides for limited profits. Why? becuase
:>> of the automatic competition that occurs as you grow and the fact that
:>> there can be no relicencing/reseller agreement for any price (it must
:>> be free), competition will inherently limit the amount of money you can
:>> charge and the breadth of your immediate distribution.
:>
:>I haven't seen many car dealerships closing down their repair facilities
:>because of the competition from independent service stations. Why should
:>competition from other distribution and maintenance organizations be so bad
:>in the software world, while it's OK in other industries? If you want
:>people to use your distribution or maintenance service rather than someone
:>else's, make yours better -- don't depend on artificial monopolies to
:>protect you.
This type of comparison is pure nonsense. Car dealerships and their
repair facilities are treated as separate businesses for the most part,
and the dealership side is virtually all location-based (who's nearest to
you, how many different dealers am I willing to visit). The same cannot
be said for a software distribution which can be obtained from virtually
anywhere in the world without any discernable effort. Software support
is usually tightly coupled to the company that sold you the software
in the first place.
You cannot simply equate one industry with another and expect the same
rules to apply... that's a great way to go out of business. Running
a business requires a bit more smarts, and software is a VERY different
business from anything else. The support issues are also very different.
With GPL, the cornerstone... the actual selling of the software, is
basically taken away leaving only the support and distribution mechanisms.
Distribution is taken away by the internet, leaving only the support
mechanisms. Support is the single most costly part of a business... it's
very difficult to make money from support. The difficulty can be readily
shown even without GPL making things worst... look at BSDI. They have the
double problem of using a relatively free software base, selling it, and
then having to live off the support. They lose customers to other
equivalent distributions, they lose customers by being forced to charge
an arm and a leg for support and source, and they lose profits by having
to deal with the support mechanism in the first place. The only way they
are able to survive is by differentiating their product, BSDI, from the
other free unixes. They are slowly doing so.
GPL makes differentiation nearly impossible. If BSDI were trying to sell
a GPL based system they would be out of business. GPL takes away three
quarters of the mechanisms that businesses use to make money, leaving
only one relatively undesireable alternative. The motive is altruistic,
but people are not. People compete, and true competition is virtually
impossible in a GPL environment. It's great for a hobby (even a life-long
hobby), It's pretty good for a non-profit, but it isn't so hot for a
commercial entity which is why I put GPL'd stuff smack dab in the middle
between freeware and commercialware. Even shareware is better then GPL!
-Matt
:>--
:>Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
:>GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
Toon Moene
ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote:
> Albert Calahan wrote:
> > Nope, commercial entities may resell and reuse elements of the
> > software for profit without any permission beyond the GPL itself.
> >
> > Somebody was selling a value-added Linux that made /usr just
> > a CD-ROM cache to reduce disk space. They didn't need to ask
> > anybody for permission to do that, and they made a profit.
> >
> I have to agree with that. However, that is only true for software that
> you haven't modified (e.g. pure CDROM distributions.) If you start
modifying
> the GPLed code, your modifications, due to "derivative works" issues become
> tainted with GPL. That, in essence, often has the effect that Matt is
> alluding to.
Indeed, and it is often the effect *we*, i.e. the types that are interesting
to further the GPL's course, are least interested in.
Note: I do realise that there are situations where you don't want your work
being regarded as a derivative work, but - heck - I haven't been in such a
situation.
1. Either I discover a bug in a Freely Distributed OS and I want to have it
fixed - no sweat about whose work I'm deriving from
Or:
2. I'm adding new work (ie. a Fortran compiler, or parts thereof), because
I really need one and then I'm not hurt too.
So where's the problem ?
--
Toon Moene (mailto:to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: mailto:for...@gnu.org; NWP: http://www.knmi.nl/hirlam
TonyP
In article <67mln7$1...@tools.bbnplanet.com>, bar...@bbnplanet.com says...
> In article <67ju7u$11l$1...@flea.best.net>, Matt Dillon <dil...@best.net> wrote:
> > This puts GPLd software squarely in the middle ground between freeware
> > and commercialware, because the whole point of going commercial is to
> > make a profit and GPL only provides for limited profits. Why? becuase
> > of the automatic competition that occurs as you grow and the fact that
> > there can be no relicencing/reseller agreement for any price (it must
> > be free), competition will inherently limit the amount of money you can
> > charge and the breadth of your immediate distribution.
>
> I haven't seen many car dealerships closing down their repair facilities
> because of the competition from independent service stations.
The analogy is inappropriate. You don't get the engineering blueprints
(nor does the mechanic) to a car when you buy one, you get maintenance
manuals. A mechanic has rebuild manuals but those are more like
developer provided APIs. The appropriate analogy would be car mechanic
equivalent to someone who is doing the setup/configuration via the
developer supplied files, parameters, programs etc. Blueprints are
strategic assets. If you have anything worth something, you protect it.
(well maybe not _you_ ;)).
> Why should
> competition from other distribution and maintenance organizations be so bad
> in the software world, while it's OK in other industries? If you want
> people to use your distribution or maintenance service rather than someone
> else's, make yours better -- don't depend on artificial monopolies to
> protect you.
You (like most other GPLers) are missing the fundamental point. That
being that invention is a strategic asset. The basic principle of
competitive business won't change no matter how much you guys just want
to be "career programmers" for hire. For proprietors, the programming is
just a means and not an end. Just accept that their are basically two
camps and most likely you won't see members of one in the other.
Tony
TonyP
In article <67mlup$1...@tools.bbnplanet.com>, bar...@bbnplanet.com says...
> In article <MPG.f06c8bad...@news.idt.net>,
> TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> >In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
> >d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de says...
> >
> >> continued free availability of the software in the process.
> >>
> >I wish you (GPL) guys would quit referring to "software" when what you
> >really mean is "source code". "Software", to most people, implies "for
> >the end _user_" while "source code" is something mainly developers are
> >interested in.
>
> The GPL ensures free availability of *both* the source and executable code
> of the work and all derivatives.
>
common, every day business/proprietor selling end-user programs not
designed for use by other developers, it is inappropriate. For anyone
wishing to capitalize on their inventions, GPL is inappropriate (read GPL
is inappropriate for the majority of traditional businesses) (I'll
probably get in trouble for that one!). Let's just
drop it. GPL is for the GNU/Linux crowd of which many are not a part
(and many probably _because_of_ the GPL). Good luck to you.
Regards,
Tony
Matt Dillon
:In article <349f5...@news.ivm.net>, <Klaus.S...@bonn.netsurf.de> wrote:
:>Free software for free people.
:>>
:>GPL is good for everyone except thieves, exploiters, borgs and other slime.
:>
:>Klaus Schilling the gnu-bull
This is a rather fanatical viewpoint. Most people have to work for
a living and wanting a nice house and secure future is not an immoral
goal. I, myself, split my programming between essentially free software
such as AmigaUUCP (freeware), DICE (68000 C compiler I did for the amiga
years ago - was shareware, is now freeware), DMouse, DME, DMail,
DiabloNews (news transit system, relatively recent), XMake, DCron (that
linux uses!), varying amounts of work on Linux and FreeBSD (more FreeBSD
nowadays), etc, and proprietary work such as the WWW server BEST uses
for most of its bulk web serving and various OS hacks that were deemed
too sensitive (to allow the competition to get) to part with.
Apart from the linux work, I've never felt any of these items to be
appropriate to put under GPL, not even the FreeWare.
I'm perfectly willing to allow people to use the stuff I freely distribute,
even commercial entities can run it on their internal systems and user-
support servers. But nobody incorporates the (non-PD but freeware)
material into a commercial software product without my permission or they
get their fingers fried. I got taken for a ride once with a piece of
software when I was 14 years old and that taught me a valueable lesson...
there are greedy people out there who are perfectly willing to follow
the letter, but not the spirit, of a copyright notice.
-Matt
Timothy Murphy
l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>What features? Are there Linux binaries that don't run under FreeBSD?
Does java (jdk) with graphics run under FreeBSD ?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
John S. Dyson
In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
> before you post what you think it might be about?
>
has a very specific connotation, and in no way accurate usage when
there is no intention to deceive. Using the word lie is very perjorative
in English usage (esp. in the US, I don't know about UK or OZ.) The only case
where it *might* be used in the way that you are using it is if Matt
himself used it, in jest (and that would be nonstandard.)
Don't assume the word "lie" in English is the same as the word that
sounds similar in German. The word "lie" accuses the person of intentional
deceit. I know Matt, and he is not that kind of person.
(Sorry, but I have seen alot of incorrect usage of this word, and it gets
tiresome, and can cause flamage.)
Klaus.S...@bonn.netsurf.de
>
> Re: BSD License question
>
> From: anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP)
> Reply to: TonyP
> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:07:58 -0600
> Organization: IDT
> Newsgroups:
> comp.os.linux.misc,
> comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
> gnu.misc.discuss
> Followup to: newsgroup(s)
> References:
> <67erag$r...@smash.gatech.edu>
> <67iect$hmn$1...@flea.best.net>
> <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
> <MPG.f06c8bad...@news.idt.net>
> <67mlup$1...@tools.bbnplanet.com>
>
>In article <67mlup$1...@tools.bbnplanet.com>, bar...@bbnplanet.com says...
>> In article <MPG.f06c8bad...@news.idt.net>,
>> TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>> >In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
>> >d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de says...
>> >
>> >> continued free availability of the software in the process.
>> >>
>> >I wish you (GPL) guys would quit referring to "software" when what you
>> >really mean is "source code". "Software", to most people, implies "for
>> >the end _user_" while "source code" is something mainly developers are
>> >interested in.
What most people think is irrelevant. The earth wasn't flat back when the
majority thought so.
>>
>> The GPL ensures free availability of *both* the source and executable code
>> of the work and all derivatives.
>>
>common, every day business/proprietor selling end-user programs not
>designed for use by other developers, it is inappropriate. For anyone
>wishing to capitalize on their inventions, GPL is inappropriate (read GPL
>is inappropriate for the majority of traditional businesses) (I'll
>probably get in trouble for that one!). Let's just
>drop it. GPL is for the GNU/Linux crowd of which many are not a part
>(and many probably _because_of_ the GPL). Good luck to you.
>
David Kastrup
ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes:
> In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
> David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> >
> > Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
> > before you post what you think it might be about?
> >
> I don't know if you are a native English speaker, but the word "lie"
> has a very specific connotation, and in no way accurate usage when
> there is no intention to deceive. Using the word lie is very perjorative
> in English usage (esp. in the US, I don't know about UK or OZ.) The only case
> where it *might* be used in the way that you are using it is if Matt
> himself used it, in jest (and that would be nonstandard.)
>
> Don't assume the word "lie" in English is the same as the word that
> sounds similar in German. The word "lie" accuses the person of intentional
> deceit. I know Matt, and he is not that kind of person.
>
> (Sorry, but I have seen alot of incorrect usage of this word, and it gets
> tiresome, and can cause flamage.)
Sorry, but I *am* getting slightly mad about all the nonsense that
continually gets posted about what people think the GPL says (the most
typical nonsense being that you are not allowed to charge substantial
money for distributing GPL software). As the source of the GPL is
freely available to anybody wanting to read it, and since it has been
debated and explained for years almost in this newsgroups, it seems to
me that a good portion of quite willingly ignoring available
information is necessary to still tell things like that.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
John S. Dyson
In article <m2g1nkc...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> Sorry, but I *am* getting slightly mad about all the nonsense that
> continually gets posted about what people think the GPL says (the most
> typical nonsense being that you are not allowed to charge substantial
> money for distributing GPL software). As the source of the GPL is
> freely available to anybody wanting to read it, and since it has been
> debated and explained for years almost in this newsgroups, it seems to
> me that a good portion of quite willingly ignoring available
> information is necessary to still tell things like that.
>
to make a claim that is a conclusion without explaining the circumstance.
If someone says "GPL'ed code cannot be used commercially", I understand
exactly what the person means. However, to people who don't know the context,
it might mean something different. The above statement is untrue on the
face of it, but being a little more precise "GPLed code has (often|sometimes)
not used commercially due to it's terms being unacceptable for the
application" is indeed true.
I think that sometimes people get tired of these arguments, but they are
very educational for those who can deal with the low SNR. Young people
(and I do not mean it prejoratively) often go to school, in institutions
with liberal or socialistic indoctorination, and hear one political or
economic side. It is good for engineers and programmers, who are usually
very interested in their fields, but who are still very flexible in their
beliefs get to see some views from the capitalistic side.
With the foregone conclusion that the software will become "social property"
of some kind, capitalistic businesses who redistribute binaries should be
very careful of what they are doing with GPLed source code. It might
even be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility for an asset such
as source code of a potential valuable trade secret to be encumbered by
GPL. Other license terms allow that decision to be deferred, until the
situation can be evaluated.
If I was a stockholder in a large corporation who made a mistake like the
above, I would go ballistic. A strategic part of a "capital asset" is
being treated irresponsibly almost like a policy of keeping a safe door
open.
John S. Dyson
In article <349f5...@news.ivm.net>,
Klaus.S...@bonn.netsurf.de writes:
>
> GPL is good for everyone except thieves, exploiters, borgs and other slime.
>
> Klaus Schilling the gnu-bull
>
Geoff C. Marshall
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> a...@dungeon.inka.de (Andreas Jellinghaus) writes:
>
> > a good solution might be somewhere in the middle. bsd licence
> > allows people too much (like changeing the bsd licence to gpl),
>
> You can't change the traditional BSD licence to GPL because
> the GPL prohibits what the BSD licence requires: the credit in
> product documentation. The GPL prohibits additional restrictions,
> which does not sit well with egomaniacs. Isn't it enough that
> your name is in the source code?
>
> > that works fine with lesstif, you may not link it with motif).
>
> You can link with motif, since that falls under the exception
> for operating system components. It is considered the same as libc.
>
>
> I notice that gcc has Objective C support and FreeBSD does
> not have _many_ SunOS features. Linux has gained many features
> from commercial use, though without threat of lawsuit yet.
>
> free software was going 100% commercial at an alarming rate.
> Imagine what your reaction would be if all the core FreeBSD
> developers decided to go 100% commercial with some great new
> which is why the GPL exists.
Let us assume that it *does* happen to FreeBSD. There
is already a large installed user base. These people
have not just the source, but the source to the "system"
(cvsup, mirrors, direcotry structures etc.).
For FreeBSD to become ChargitBSD, it would have to offer
something major, else there would be a new 'FreeBSD'.
So, ChargitBSD is going to have to have something
worthwhile and its price must be low enough to
avoid driving away the current user base (who
because of source availability are *not* tied
down.
Considering the the large user base, it is
doubtful that ChargitBSD would need to bite
anyone of us very deep...
Doesn't seem a terribly frightning scenario to
me, really. Sure, I could get 'hurt', but not
badly, and that hurt would mostly be a slower
rate of development, not 'damage' per se.
No, I think the FreeBSD team have much to be
proud of, not just in product but in stance.
Geoff...
Geoff C. Marshall
John S. Dyson wrote:
>
-[Huge Snip]-
>
> So, licenses that don't support and foster software being a capital asset
> of some sort, force us into the support (slave) economy when we adopt
> usage of such. I think that this is the basis of some people saying that
> GPL being some kind of socialistic document (and I tend to agree.)
>
I read the post, badly at first, then I saw where
you were coming from, and I largely agree.
I have one reservation though. The computer
industry is (by and large) a service industry.
The computer industry provides infrastructure
for businesses to operate faster and more
efficiently (therefore profitably).
Over my years in the industry, I have seen the
emphasis move from "sales" to "support" (to an
extent at least) as the "market vaccum" filled.
When sales become scarce and sporadic, companies
have found that what they need is not profit on
the sale, but regular income from the client.
The idea of a steady budgeted expenditure for
a customer and a steady budgeted income for
"manufacturer" is attractive to both.
This has happened to some extent with hardware,
and to some extent with software. Taken further
the GPL could be seen to offer a different
economic model. Maybe software should not be
seen as a capital item - it devalues too fast.
On the other hand, should this model come about,
the GPL people will be in a very politicaly
powerful position.
You have just opened a can of worms for me.
Going to take a bit to work all this out.....
Geoff...
James Youngman
>>>>> "John" == John S Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> writes:
John> Basically, GPL code is PD code for the collective :-).
John> If you aren't a member of the collective, and follow
John> it's rules that force you do give away your work under
John> redistribution of binaries, then you don't get to use it.
John> Your work becomes an anonymous part of the collective,
John> and you are assimilated. :-).
I guess you could look at it that way... but nobody becomes anonymous.
--
James Youngman; <j...@gnu.borg.org>
James Youngman
>>>>> "John" == John S Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> writes:
[company produced product derived from GPLed work and sells it without
needing permission]
John> I have to agree with that. However, that is only true for
John> software that you haven't modified (e.g. pure CDROM
John> distributions.) If you start modifying the GPLed code, your
John> modifications, due to "derivative works" issues become tainted
John> with GPL. That, in essence, often has the effect that Matt is
John> alluding to. That is also the reason that GPLed code is often
John> and should be avoided for embedded work. (GPLed development
John> tools don't cause such a problem, except for compiler writers,
John> etc. It isn't often that GCC has to be hacked by the end
John> user, OSes and drivers are another matter.)
True, but as long as you follow the required conditions, you do not
have to ask *permission*, which was the previous poster's point.
John> In a strict way, the Linux kernel is a GPLed support
John> subroutine package. Do you want your code to be linked with
John> proprietary interfaces to such a package?
It is NOT such a package. See the first ten lines of
/usr/src/linux/COPYING.
John> Luckily,
John> interpretations generally give relief for such usage (userland
John> programs), but I would be surprised if it has been tested.
John> Using Linux specific API's could cause problems, though.
James Youngman
>>>>> "John" == John S Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> writes:
John> In article <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
John> David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>>
>> Will you please please stop spreading lies about the GPL and read it
>> before you post what you think it might be about?
John> I don't know if you are a native English speaker, but the word
John> "lie" has a very specific connotation, and in no way accurate
John> usage when there is no intention to deceive. Using the word
Well, substitute "falsehood" then; it has no such connotation.
James Youngman
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Gribble <gr...@cs.utexas.edu> writes:
Bill> IANAL, but I believe that only a trademark can give this type
Bill> of protection. If "Apache" is not trademarked, anyone can
Bill> release a software package and call it Apache.
This is true -- but curiously, only if that packahe is NOT based on
Apache itself. This is because if you want to create a work based on
Apache you have to abide by the copying conditions.
How odd...
James Youngman
>>>>> "TonyP" == TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> writes:
TonyP> In article
TonyP> <m2pvmry...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
TonyP> d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de says...
>> continued free availability of the software in the process.
TonyP> I wish you (GPL) guys would quit referring to "software" when
TonyP> what you really mean is "source code". "Software", to most
TonyP> people, implies "for the end _user_" while "source code" is
TonyP> something mainly developers are interested in.
IMHO, genuinely freely available software (in your sense of the word)
is not possible without free source availability because of the
changing nature of computers.
Of what use to end-users is a binary-only freely-redistributable V7
Unix PDP-11 program? Not very much, nowadays. Now if you had the
source code, it might be of some use ***to the end user** today.
If all CPUs were identical today and would never change in the future,
I would concede that binary-only no-charge binaries were almost as
useful to end users as GPLed software.
Of course, without source availability, the end users would still be
handicapped about where they can get support and bugfixes from,
however.
James Youngman
>>>>> "John" == John S Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> writes:
John> Continually, GPL advocates miss the point of the whole reason
John> to dislike GPL. That is the taint of inventions made that
John> incorporate GPLed code.
On the contrary, I maintain that this exact effect is the very reason
why those people *do* advocate the GPL. Certainly it's the reason
that I do (I am speaking of the 'viral' nature of the GPL).
John> That $0.50 or $0.005 doesn't make a
John> hill of beans of difference. It is the proprietary ideas that
John> have to be exposed (GPL taint). That is why GPL will never
John> fully take over the market. That is the reason for the
John> existance of free software, instead of GPL.
True, not everybody likes the GPL and I would defend their right not
to like it.
TonyP
> Software includes source ascii files as well. End user is a volatile notion.
> What most people think is irrelevant. The earth wasn't flat back when the
> majority thought so.
> Free software for free people.
> GPL is good for everyone except thieves, exploiters, borgs and other slime.
Ah yes, youth alive and kicking!
Tony
TonyP
In article <m2g1nkc...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de says...
> Sorry, but I *am* getting slightly mad about all the nonsense that
> continually gets posted about what people think the GPL says (the most
> typical nonsense being that you are not allowed to charge substantial
> money for distributing GPL software). As the source of the GPL is
> freely available to anybody wanting to read it, and since it has been
> debated and explained for years almost in this newsgroups, it seems to
> me that a good portion of quite willingly ignoring available
> information is necessary to still tell things like that.
>
Don't get mad, just realize most people don't have time to wallow in the
complexity of GPL. All the controversy that surrounds it is enough to
make people avoid it for it makes them less free (it steals their most
valuable asset: their time). Simple is better. Save the time for real
life.
Tony
TonyP
In article <wk7m8wy...@vggas.com>, JYou...@vggas.com says...
> IMHO, genuinely freely available software (in your sense of the word)
> is not possible without free source availability because of the
> changing nature of computers.
>
> Of what use to end-users is a binary-only freely-redistributable V7
> Unix PDP-11 program? Not very much, nowadays. Now if you had the
> source code, it might be of some use ***to the end user** today.
>
> If all CPUs were identical today and would never change in the future,
> I would concede that binary-only no-charge binaries were almost as
> useful to end users as GPLed software.
>
> Of course, without source availability, the end users would still be
> handicapped about where they can get support and bugfixes from,
> however.
>
are not developers anyway. Just as they would not rebuild their old car
but rather buy a new one, so would they buy new software. I have many
times just bought my way out of a computer problem; for instance when I
replaced my 386/20 running Win3.1 to a P5/100 running Win95. Software
hasa lifespan also. Some, like the utility text filters I have written,
last years and years. Other stuff may last considerably less long.
I, as a developer, produce _end product_ for software consumers (mostly),
not development tools for developers. See the distinction? Just
separate products for separate markets. When you buy from me, you are
putting a certain amount of trust in me if the software is for long term
use, assuming you are a _user_. Also you have some sort of warranty.
That's the limit of my obligation to you. I have time and money invested
in products and yes there may be future sales potential of associated
services as part of the business plan. Those are disclosed. One GPL-
size paradigm does not fit very many of the many scenarios out there.
They are as individual as the creative ones who _offer_ them. If you
seek development tools (considerably higher priced because it may
constitute "giving away the store") you may have to look elsewhere.
Don't try to force me to serve your market if I don't want to. I would
not _give_ away the source code, in some (most) instances, any more than
I would give you my child. Live with it.
It's that simple, don't over-think it.
Your "genuinely free software" is a contrived set of terms to support
your paradigm/belief. It's the old proof of God argument where one
starts out assuming "well.. God created all things (therefor there must
be a God)". Anything wrapped in manipulative arguments will be rejected
immediately by all except the ones you can _fool_. Most of us old timers
don't have too much time to go round and round in circles arguing with
you child-like GPLers. Sorry. Sometimes you just have to know.
Sorry if I brought any new opinion into it. I really don't want to argue
this point with you as I have already rejected GPL based on all the
information I need. (It does perturb me somewhat that there appears to
be social manipulation practices in use within the GPL realm though).
Tony
J Wunsch
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> I must say I got pretty angry by the following response. You cut
> sentences of mine off in the middle, giving wrong meanings,
Which wrong meanings?
Sorry, i'm not going to quote entire articles. That's what
newsreaders are for. Just walk back the thread, and read the original
article.
I've cut off those parts of your article i was going to reply to, so
people interested to watch the entire thread have enough of context to
spot it in the original posting. That's how Usenet usually works.
Besides, i mainly quoted just two sentences at all, and was replying
to them (and to nothing else).
> I recommend that you just read it once, and in context, for starters.
I did, years ago. Too much to keep all this in mind. And yes, you
guess it, that's one of the reasons why i'm avoiding to put my own
code under GPL. How should i put my code under a license not even a
lawyer will understand in full detail?
>> > The GPL explicitly
>> > allows any commercial entity to resell and reuse elements of the
>> > software for whatever profit they want ...
>
> and then you cut off the quote which would have mentioned provided
> that they adhere to certain restrictions,
Simple: i didn't talk about those restrictions. (Since they have been
stated a number of times before, thus can be considered well-enough-
known. I didn't argue about those restrictions (the requirement to
provide the source, etc.) at all, so why should i quote them?)
> Wrong. You can demand whatever fee you want (there is no mentioning
> about a limit here, or that your fee must be based on your actual
> costs).
Ok. Does this (your) example finally make it clear to you why i hate
this license (now -- i didn't always)? Maybe you're right with your
opinion, maybe not. Who knows? The next lawyer might argue just the
other way round, that if you're allowed to demand a fee only for the
``phyiscal act of transferring a copy'', an overly large amount of
money would be seemingly inappropriate, thus contradictionary to the
license terms.
(I'll stop contributing to this thread by now. Send me a mail if you
think we should talk more, but be warned that i'll drop it into the
bitbucket if it's inflammatory.)
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_...@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Mike McGaughey
Klaus.S...@bonn.netsurf.de writes:
> GPL is good for everyone except thieves, exploiters, borgs, ...
...and people who want to make a living writing software (as against
by providing telephone support).
Cheers,
Mike.
ps: I've always felt the BSD licence to be considerably less mean-spirited
than the GPL. To use the BSD licence, you really do have to take a deep
breath and *decide* you're not attaching any strings (besides the requirement
that the source retain your memory - sort of a `foo was here').
--
Mike McGaughey AARNET: mm...@cs.monash.edu.au
"Thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest" - Milton.
Albert D. Cahalan
dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
> Distribution is taken away by the internet, leaving only the support
> mechanisms. Support is the single most costly part of a business...
> it's very difficult to make money from support.
Cygnus exists to support GPL software. They are hiring.
> shown even without GPL making things worst... look at BSDI. They have the
> double problem of using a relatively free software base, selling it, and
> then having to live off the support. They lose customers to other
> equivalent distributions, they lose customers by being forced to charge
> an arm and a leg for support and source, and they lose profits by having
> to deal with the support mechanism in the first place. The only way they
> are able to survive is by differentiating their product, BSDI, from the
> other free unixes. They are slowly doing so.
So basically, they suck. Perhaps they should provide better support
and try to _sell_ that support.
> GPL makes differentiation nearly impossible. If BSDI were trying
> to sell a GPL based system they would be out of business.
Don't tell Red Hat, Caldera, and SuSE that they must be out of business.
> The motive is altruistic, but people are not.
Now we have an anti-GPL person being a pessimist.
> commercial entity which is why I put GPL'd stuff smack dab in the middle
> between freeware and commercialware. Even shareware is better then GPL!
That was a really dumb comment.
James Youngman
>>>>> "TonyP" == TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> writes:
TonyP> Software
TonyP> hasa lifespan also. Some, like the utility text filters I
TonyP> have written, last years and years. Other stuff may last
TonyP> considerably less long.
Most software has a limited lifespan, because there is no possibility
of updating or improving it as the world moves on. With Free
(i.e. GPL) software this is not he case. I confidently expect GPLed
software packages to outlive non-GPLed software packages by a *large*
margin.
Nathan Hand
anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP) writes:
> In article <wk7m8wy...@vggas.com>, JYou...@vggas.com says...
>
> > Of course, without source availability, the end users would still be
> > handicapped about where they can get support and bugfixes from,
> > however.
>
> Of what use is your old worn out car? Buy a new one! Again most people
> are not developers anyway. Just as they would not rebuild their old car
> but rather buy a new one, so would they buy new software.
But the car manufacturers don't "reinvent the wheel" for each
new model of car. They build on the old ideas, with small and
incremental improvements in every conceivable area. Rarely is
the change revolutionary in nature.
You can replace "car manufacturer" with "petrol station", and
"service mechanic", and "accessory manufacturer", while still
retaining the gist of the argument. It's equally as important
for the ideas to be free, as much as the end product.
> I, as a developer, produce _end product_ for software consumers (mostly),
> not development tools for developers. See the distinction?
Though I can't speak for youngman, I don't personally see the
distinction. In both cases you have a consumer, one is simply
more knowledgable in the technical field than the other. Both
consumers would like the product to last for a long time.
> Just
> separate products for separate markets. When you buy from me, you are
> putting a certain amount of trust in me if the software is for long term
> use, assuming you are a _user_.
You assume developers don't want their software to have "long
term use" also?
> Also you have some sort of warranty.
> That's the limit of my obligation to you. I have time and money invested
> in products and yes there may be future sales potential of associated
> services as part of the business plan. Those are disclosed. One GPL-
> size paradigm does not fit very many of the many scenarios out there.
> They are as individual as the creative ones who _offer_ them. If you
> seek development tools (considerably higher priced because it may
> constitute "giving away the store") you may have to look elsewhere.
> Don't try to force me to serve your market if I don't want to. I would
> not _give_ away the source code, in some (most) instances, any more than
> I would give you my child. Live with it.
Nobody is forcing you to give away your "children".
> Your "genuinely free software" is a contrived set of terms to support
> your paradigm/belief. It's the old proof of God argument where one
> starts out assuming "well.. God created all things (therefor there must
> be a God)".
I don't see the similarity.
> Anything wrapped in manipulative arguments will be rejected
> immediately by all except the ones you can _fool_. Most of us old timers
> don't have too much time to go round and round in circles arguing with
> you child-like GPLers. Sorry. Sometimes you just have to know.
RMS is not old? RMS is a child? RMS is manipulative?
> Sorry if I brought any new opinion into it. I really don't want to argue
> this point with you as I have already rejected GPL based on all the
> information I need. (It does perturb me somewhat that there appears to
> be social manipulation practices in use within the GPL realm though).
If you've already rejected it why are you arguing? Surely you
have better things to do?
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Windows 95,
Windows NT 4.0, or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
John S. Dyson
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
>
> > Distribution is taken away by the internet, leaving only the support
> > mechanisms. Support is the single most costly part of a business...
> > it's very difficult to make money from support.
>
> Cygnus exists to support GPL software. They are hiring.
>
It doesn't always give out source code freely, and to get the sources,
you normally pay them for support. Those people who have paid for
support do not have to redistribute any GPLed sources to lurkers,
and it is not always in their interest to do so.
I suspect that Cygnus has expanded their business model from GPL
only, so that they can expand and grow more. Geesh, I should read
my signature line more often :-(.
Matt Dillon
:In article <vc7g1nj...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
:Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
:>dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon) writes:
:>
:>> Distribution is taken away by the internet, leaving only the support
:>> mechanisms. Support is the single most costly part of a business...
:>> it's very difficult to make money from support.
:>
:>Cygnus exists to support GPL software. They are hiring.
:>> shown even without GPL making things worst... look at BSDI. They have the
:>> double problem of using a relatively free software base, selling it, and
:>> then having to live off the support. They lose customers to other
:>> equivalent distributions, they lose customers by being forced to charge
:>> an arm and a leg for support and source, and they lose profits by having
:>> to deal with the support mechanism in the first place. The only way they
:>> are able to survive is by differentiating their product, BSDI, from the
:>> other free unixes. They are slowly doing so.
:>
:>So basically, they suck. Perhaps they should provide better support
:>and try to _sell_ that support.
:>
:>> GPL makes differentiation nearly impossible. If BSDI were trying
:>> to sell a GPL based system they would be out of business.
:>
:>Don't tell Red Hat, Caldera, and SuSE that they must be out of business.
:>
:>> The motive is altruistic, but people are not.
:>
:>Now we have an anti-GPL person being a pessimist.
:>
:>> commercial entity which is why I put GPL'd stuff smack dab in the middle
:>> between freeware and commercialware. Even shareware is better then GPL!
:>
:>That was a really dumb comment.
All this response shows is that you have no understanding whatsoever
of my posting, since you have twisted just about every point it's made
into garbage. Try reading it a bit more carefully before you make an
idiot of yourself.
Barry Margolin
In article <67q8dv$tlk$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
Mike McGaughey <mm...@mjolnir.cs.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Klaus.S...@bonn.netsurf.de writes:
>> GPL is good for everyone except thieves, exploiters, borgs, ...
>
>...and people who want to make a living writing software (as against
>by providing telephone support).
Actually, the GPL expands the opportunities for making a living writing
software. Much software development is simply modifications (enhancements
and bug fixes) to existing software. With proprietary software, you have
to be or work for the vendor to be able to modify the software. With GPL
software (and other forms of protection that make source available) you can
hire yourself out to anyone who wants modifications made.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
Please don't send technical questions directly to me, post them to newsgroups.
David Kastrup
anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP) writes:
> In article <wk7m8wy...@vggas.com>, JYou...@vggas.com says...
> > IMHO, genuinely freely available software (in your sense of the word)
> > is not possible without free source availability because of the
> > changing nature of computers.
> >
> > Of what use to end-users is a binary-only freely-redistributable V7
> > Unix PDP-11 program? Not very much, nowadays. Now if you had the
> > source code, it might be of some use ***to the end user** today.
>
> Of what use is your old worn out car? Buy a new one! Again most people
> are not developers anyway. Just as they would not rebuild their old car
> but rather buy a new one, so would they buy new software. I have many
> times just bought my way out of a computer problem; for instance when I
> replaced my 386/20 running Win3.1 to a P5/100 running Win95. Software
> hasa lifespan also. Some, like the utility text filters I have written,
> last years and years. Other stuff may last considerably less long.
The problem is that we are not talking about driving a car here, but
about the process of building a car. Your argumentation is based on
the assumption that for the blueprints of a new car, no information
about previous cars will be of any use. Basically, that every car is
to be designed from total scratch.
This is not the case. You get better software and cars by starting
from the plans and experience you had from previous cars. When
software for every new hardware has to be written new from scratch,
there will occur a point of time after which every newly written
software is not better than its predecessor. To get progress, you
need to have a point to start from different from absolute zero each
time.
This is where source availability happens to be an asset.
Albert D. Cahalan
"John S. Dyson" <dy...@freebsd.org> writes:
> I suspect that Cygnus has expanded their business model from GPL
> only, so that they can expand and grow more. Geesh, I should read
> my signature line more often :-(.
Commercial software is fine. It means more employment. If some
company can grab BSD source, mostly the profits _won't_ go to
software developers. With the GPL, companies must either return
the improvments or hire more programmers to reimplement.
I'm happy with both.
John S. Dyson
In article <vc7iuse...@saturn.cs.uml.edu>,
have apparently found that GPL isn't sufficient for their business interests.
I don't fault them for that, and if it wasn't for GPL, they might not have
ever been able to bootstrap themselves into being a real, viable company.
It is not likely that many other companies will be able to do that, because
the model of GPL-->>Proprietary business model now has a precedent. Therefore,
those who believe that GPL is "the way" will be more careful with their
efforts in the future.
My argument against GPL is admittedly weaker at the micro level (small
world/company view) than the macro level (big world/company view.) It is the
infective (or invective :-)) nature of GPL that makes the transition from
the "little developer wants to infect other peoples work" to the "hey, we
have made a signficant invention, but this d*mn GPL screws us" very likely.
Geesh, working on GPLed code appears to be good for pessimists that don't
think that they can invent anything. Or if they do, they don't think that
it is worth very much in the form of capital to them. Since alot of the
programmers who like GPL can program well, I suspect it is my second guess,
that the developers don't believe in the value of the capital that they
produce. I happen to believe in my creative capabilities, and tend to
be realistically optimistic. The manifestation of that realistic optimism
is that I defer the choice of donating software, redistribution encumberance
free, until I release the work. The GPL model a-priori makes that choice,
but attaches some onerous strings (redistriubution encumberances, and
as a side-effect, IP encumberance) on the work, for other people who might
mistakenly choose to put significant effort into it.
TonyP
In article <m21zz2n...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de says...
> The problem is that we are not talking about driving a car here, but
> about the process of building a car. Your argumentation is based on
> the assumption that for the blueprints of a new car, no information
> about previous cars will be of any use. Basically, that every car is
> to be designed from total scratch.
No I didn't mean that at all! That was not my assumption.
>
> This is not the case. You get better software and cars by starting
> from the plans and experience you had from previous cars. When
> software for every new hardware has to be written new from scratch,
> there will occur a point of time after which every newly written
> software is not better than its predecessor. To get progress, you
> need to have a point to start from different from absolute zero each
> time.
Yes, software companies that have been in business a while will have more
assets to reuse. There is no difference in the case of the software
developer from the auto maker. Perhaps you are just looking for a way to
jump start a business with an existing code base?
Tony
Mike McGaughey
Barry Margolin <bar...@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>
> Actually, the GPL expands the opportunities for making a living writing
> software. Much software development is simply modifications (enhancements
> and bug fixes) to existing software.
Ah, but Barry, you miss the point - what if I don't *want* to do
that sort of work?
After all, some of us are *not* pedestrian programmers; we generally
get to pick and choose which contracts we take. For this reason,
my last four contracts have been R&D jobs (and bloody interesting
ones, too). Such endeavours cannot afford to be tainted by the GPL.
Cheers,
Mike.
Colonel Panic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Jerry Hicks wrote:
> Kevin Lyda wrote:
> > that's what makes the gpl work. most people won't care sources are
> > available, and will get them from a packager. the packager will add
> > things like tech support, a feature request hotline, manuals, training,
> > etc. those companies would hire programmers to add features, fix bugs,
> > etc. and since they'd be modifying gpl code, those features would be
> > available to everyone.
> And assumes the company doesn't care about strategic IP assets either.
> No thanks.
> Our lawyers and board of directors wouldn't even consider allowing us to
> derive from works having such an infectious licensing scheme.
> BSD-licensing allows us to profit from our R&D investments.
> After all, we are in the game to make money. What's wrong with that?
Thanks for giving a perfect illustration of the reason for the
existence of the GPL. Using the BSD license as your excuse, you take
the work of many talented programmers and give them the finger. Yes,
what an 'onerous burden' -- giving back something to the community
that produced the software you take for free ... The corrected version
is
"BSD-licensing allows us to profit from the work of others without
having to pay them."
Yep, 'something for nothing' -- it's the American Way.
mp
"Most people would sooner die than think -- in fact, they do."
-- Bertrand Russell
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Linux 2.0.32 -> AMD 5x86-133 | pgpk -a finger://teleport.com/looie |
+=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Michael Powe lo...@teleport.com |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNKX84Ud/HEJs3CCeEQIPzwCg1MY+mDVxInaYWXp0qtzmmLlQi0MAnic6
NMw9T9tGZT/UoFQ4rU5L6/xc
=5a/i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kevin Lyda
In gnu.misc.discuss TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
: Yes, software companies that have been in business a while will have more
: developer from the auto maker. Perhaps you are just looking for a way to
: jump start a business with an existing code base?
that's what makes the gpl work. most people won't care sources are
available, and will get them from a packager. the packager will add
things like tech support, a feature request hotline, manuals, training,
etc. those companies would hire programmers to add features, fix bugs,
etc. and since they'd be modifying gpl code, those features would be
available to everyone.
this assumes a critical mass.
kevin
Molnar Ingo
In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
[...]
> Geesh, working on GPLed code appears to be good for pessimists that don't
> think that they can invent anything. Or if they do, they don't think that
> it is worth very much in the form of capital to them. Since alot of the
> programmers who like GPL can program well, I suspect it is my second guess,
> that the developers don't believe in the value of the capital that they
> produce. I happen to believe in my creative capabilities, and tend to
> be realistically optimistic. The manifestation of that realistic optimism
> is that I defer the choice of donating software, redistribution encumberance
> free, until I release the work. The GPL model a-priori makes that choice,
> but attaches some onerous strings (redistriubution encumberances, and
> as a side-effect, IP encumberance) on the work, for other people who might
> mistakenly choose to put significant effort into it.
the GPL is simply better for bigger free projects. It gives safety for
newcomers. Your explanation is exactly the reason why many people
dislike working on FreeBSD, you guys just seem to be waiting for some 'big
idea', and split off fast. Thats not really productive, at least not as
productive as GPL projects. Simply put, FreeBSD is 'take anything, give
back only what you dont really need'. Linux is 'you cannot take away without
giving something back'. FreeBSD is 'do not trust other hackers too much,
they might take your ideas away and split off'. Linux is 'cooperate with
others, they can not take away ideas, just like yourself'. And since the goal
is to produce software more effectively, the one producing more software
will survive, naturally ;)
-- mingo
Jerry Hicks
And assumes the company doesn't care about strategic IP assets either.
No thanks.
Our lawyers and board of directors wouldn't even consider allowing us to
derive from works having such an infectious licensing scheme.
BSD-licensing allows us to profit from our R&D investments.
After all, we are in the game to make money. What's wrong with that?
Jerry Hicks
jerry...@bigfoot.com
Jerry Hicks
Colonel Panic wrote:
> Thanks for giving a perfect illustration of the reason for the
> existence of the GPL. Using the BSD license as your excuse, you take
> the work of many talented programmers and give them the finger. Yes,
> what an 'onerous burden' -- giving back something to the community
> that produced the software you take for free ... The corrected version
> is
>
> "BSD-licensing allows us to profit from the work of others without
> having to pay them."
>
> Yep, 'something for nothing' -- it's the American Way.
>
No...
One must remember that many of the Berkeley developments were funded by
DARPA.
Since we are taxpayers, we have already contributed to the development.
So have you.
Cheers,
Jerry Hicks
jerry...@bigfoot.com
Jerry Hicks
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> You're dodging the point. You haven't paid one red cent for *my* work,
> and neither has anyone else. *Some* free software development might be
> funded by the government; most of it is funded by no one and is done by
> individual programmers in their own free time.
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
I most certainly am not dodging the point. It appeals to us very much
that we are able to recoup some of the tax dollars we have paid by using
software developed by government projects.
Can you say technology-transfer to the private sector?
There might even be a case for saying that there is still more free
software available from sources that originated with US taxpayer funded
projects. You assert that it comes mostly from individuals. Prove it.
I am quite sure that if the FreeBSD folks minded us using their -TRULY-
-FREE- software, they would ask us to stop. And we would.
The software we develop is very specific to the industries we work with
and would most likely not be useful outside of our applications anyway.
Quite often, we have the need to modify drivers and the kernel in ways
that are not useful to the mainstream user community either.
BSD licensing does not compel us to make the source code available for
our proprietary software. The profits we make helps us to feed and
clothe our children. This is how we stay competitive within our
domain. And *that* is the American way.
Meanwhile, we aren't -using- your software.
Jerry Hicks
jerry...@bigfoot.com
Per Abrahamsen
[ FUT: gnu.misc.discuss ]
mm...@mjolnir.cs.monash.edu.au (Mike McGaughey) writes:
> Klaus.S...@bonn.netsurf.de writes:
> > GPL is good for everyone except thieves, exploiters, borgs, ...
>
> ...and people who want to make a living writing software (as against
> by providing telephone support).
Wrong. I make a living writing software, and the GPL is good for me.
Like the majority of programmers, I write custom software for my
employer. I don't provide telephone support.
Frank Sweetser
Colonel Panic <lo...@teleport.com> writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Jerry Hicks wrote:
>
> > Kevin Lyda wrote:
>
> > > that's what makes the gpl work. most people won't care sources are
> > > available, and will get them from a packager. the packager will add
> > > things like tech support, a feature request hotline, manuals, training,
> > > etc. those companies would hire programmers to add features, fix bugs,
> > > etc. and since they'd be modifying gpl code, those features would be
> > > available to everyone.
>
> > And assumes the company doesn't care about strategic IP assets either.
> > No thanks.
>
> > Our lawyers and board of directors wouldn't even consider allowing us to
> > derive from works having such an infectious licensing scheme.
> > BSD-licensing allows us to profit from our R&D investments.
>
> > After all, we are in the game to make money. What's wrong with that?
>
> Thanks for giving a perfect illustration of the reason for the
> existence of the GPL. Using the BSD license as your excuse, you take
> the work of many talented programmers and give them the finger. Yes,
> what an 'onerous burden' -- giving back something to the community
> that produced the software you take for free ... The corrected version
> is
>
> "BSD-licensing allows us to profit from the work of others without
> having to pay them."
If you're willing to allow others to use your software in commercial
situations without disclosing source code changes, use the BSD license. If
you want any and all improvements to be publicly available (as you strongly
seem to feel) use the GPL license. But be aware that whichever one you
choose, others will use the other one.
Why must it always be a 100% black and white issue on
usenet?
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.net RedHat 5.0 Linux 2.0.33 i586 | at public servers
..you could spend *all day* customizing the title bar. Believe me. I
speak from experience."
(By Matt Welsh)
Jerry Hicks
Frank Sweetser wrote:
>
> If you're willing to allow others to use your software in commercial
> situations without disclosing source code changes, use the BSD license. If
> you want any and all improvements to be publicly available (as you strongly
> seem to feel) use the GPL license. But be aware that whichever one you
> choose, others will use the other one.
>
> Why must it always be a 100% black and white issue on
> usenet?
>
Agreed. Thanks Frank.
John S. Dyson
In article <684hap$9a4$1...@goliat.eik.bme.hu>,
Molnar Ingo <mi...@insektors.inf.elte.hu> writes:
> In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>
> the GPL is simply better for bigger free projects. It gives safety for
> newcomers. Your explanation is exactly the reason why many people
> dislike working on FreeBSD, you guys just seem to be waiting for some 'big
> idea', and split off fast.
>
be free. We have codifed it in the name. If I come up with a "great
idea" or "something that took 6mos to implement" that I don't want to
redistribute freely, then I don't have to, esp. if I want to profit from it,
by redistributing binaries.
I think that 6mos of work is okay to profit from as capital. You dont.
I happen to think that it is fair to profit from such an effort. You dont.
TonyP
In article <684fmr$9hj$1...@bombay.ziplink.net>, ke...@parsley.faxinter.com
says...
> In gnu.misc.discuss TonyP <anthonp...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> : Yes, software companies that have been in business a while will have more
> : assets to reuse. There is no difference in the case of the software
> : developer from the auto maker. Perhaps you are just looking for a way to
> : jump start a business with an existing code base?
>
> available, and will get them from a packager. the packager will add
> things like tech support, a feature request hotline, manuals, training,
> etc. those companies would hire programmers to add features, fix bugs,
> etc. and since they'd be modifying gpl code, those features would be
> available to everyone.
Argh, I hate it when non-leaders go into business. Why focus on
secondary aspects of the software business (first is product)?
Tony