Attempt to relicense BSD code under the GPL
Brett Glass
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flexmach/oskit/index.html
The latest version of the "OSKit", whose STATED goal is to lower
the barrier to entry to OS R&D, has just been re-released UNDER
THE GPL.
This is not only absurd (because the GPL *is* a barrier to OS
R&D) but also illegal, because it conflicts with the licensing
provisions of the BSD code which has been incorporated into the
package.
Those who are concerned about the attempted use of the GPL
(which is anti-business, anti-innovation, and sometimes referred
to as a "viral" or "cult" license) on BSD code should contact Jay
Lepreau at lep...@cs.utah.edu. Kernel authors in particular should
be outraged at the unauthorized and unwarranted GPLing of their code
and should protested what is, essentially, hijacking of their work.
I'm copying this to hackers, but please address responses to chat.
--Brett Glass
P.S. -- Perhaps it is time to add a clause to the BSD license used
in FreeBSD specifically prohibiting relicensing of that code, or
derivative works, under the GPL.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Pedro A M Vazquez
>
> P.S. -- Perhaps it is time to add a clause to the BSD license used
> in FreeBSD specifically prohibiting relicensing of that code, or
> derivative works, under the GPL.
>
The licence and distribution terms for any publically available version or
derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot simply be
copied and put under another distribution licence
[including the GNU Public Licence.]
Jacques Vidrine
relicensed ... the individual source files contain the original
copyright notices, and doc/licensing.tex clearly states the
situation.
In addition, the project seems to welcome requests for different
licensing of the Univ. of Utah code (contact csl-...@cs.utah.edu).
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / nec...@FreeBSD.org
On 18 January 1999 at 9:32, Brett Glass <br...@lariat.org> wrote:
> According to the Web page at
>
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flexmach/oskit/index.html
>
> The latest version of the "OSKit", whose STATED goal is to lower
> the barrier to entry to OS R&D, has just been re-released UNDER
> THE GPL.
>
> This is not only absurd (because the GPL *is* a barrier to OS
> R&D) but also illegal, because it conflicts with the licensing
> provisions of the BSD code which has been incorporated into the
> package.
>
> Those who are concerned about the attempted use of the GPL
> (which is anti-business, anti-innovation, and sometimes referred
> to as a "viral" or "cult" license) on BSD code should contact Jay
> Lepreau at lep...@cs.utah.edu. Kernel authors in particular should
> be outraged at the unauthorized and unwarranted GPLing of their code
> and should protested what is, essentially, hijacking of their work.
>
> I'm copying this to hackers, but please address responses to chat.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
> P.S. -- Perhaps it is time to add a clause to the BSD license used
> in FreeBSD specifically prohibiting relicensing of that code, or
> derivative works, under the GPL.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Brett Glass
is licensed ONLY under the GPL. What's more, even if only the
COMPILATION copyright is licensed under the GPL, that's
enough to "infect" the collection as a whole.
Authors of FreeBSD kernel code should send e-mail to Mr. Lepreau
(lep...@cs.utah.edu) saying in no uncertain terms that they will
not stand for this. The GPL cancer has spread too far already,
which is why I *STRONGLY* recommend an anti-GPL provision in the
BSD license.
--Brett
Jacques Vidrine
> Nope, I'm not overreacting. The page states that the code
> is licensed ONLY under the GPL.
I don't see that. The page you reference does not contain any
reference to ``GPL''. http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/oskit/
> What's more, even if only the
> COMPILATION copyright is licensed under the GPL, that's
> enough to "infect" the collection as a whole.
What is ``the COMPILATION copyright''? I don't follow.
> Authors of FreeBSD kernel code should send e-mail to Mr. Lepreau
> (lep...@cs.utah.edu) saying in no uncertain terms that they will
> not stand for this. The GPL cancer has spread too far already,
> which is why I *STRONGLY* recommend an anti-GPL provision in the
> BSD license.
The code developed at Univ. of Utah, the OSKit proper, if you will,
is under GPL (although note that other licensing terms are available).
The code donated/borrowed from other projects, such as FreeBSD, are
still under the original copyright of the project (of course, since
that cannot legally be changed).
I'm no fan of GPL, and will not release code under GPL. However,
there does not seem to be a problem here.
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / nec...@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Brett Glass
>On 18 January 1999 at 10:01, Brett Glass <br...@lariat.org> wrote:
>> Nope, I'm not overreacting. The page states that the code
>> is licensed ONLY under the GPL.
>
>I don't see that. The page you reference does not contain any
>reference to ``GPL''. http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/oskit/
Use the links, Luke. ;-) Follow the link with the text "Licensing
policy" midway down the page. It leads to the following:
===================================================================
Copyright (c) 1994-1999 The University of Utah and the Flux Group.
All rights reserved.
The OSKit -- the Flux Operating System Toolkit.
Developed by the University of Utah, Flux Research Group.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/
The OSKit is free software -- also known as "open source" -- you can
redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
License, version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and found in
the file `COPYING'. This license basically allows free use, modification, and
redistribution, as long as the source to the OSKit and any code linked against
it is made freely available. (The license in `COPYING' is authoritative, not
this interpretation of it.) For credits and exceptions, see doc/licensing.tex.
To explore alternate licensing terms, contact the University at
csl-...@cs.utah.edu or +1-801-585-3271.
The OSKit is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
with the OSKit; see the file COPYING. If not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, 59 Temple Place #330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA, or look
at http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html.
===================================================================
There's no mention of the fact that it is per se illegal to relicense
BSD code under the GPL.
>What is ``the COMPILATION copyright''? I don't follow.
It's a basic concept of copyright law. When you compile a collection
of material, you own a copyright on the way the collection is compiled
(the selection of elements and the way in which they're linked together)
even if you don't own all of the component parts. If you wanted to
use the "OSKit," including the "glue code" that connects the various
elements, you'd have to have permission under the compilation
copyright. Apparently, the University has unwisely chosen to license
this copyright under the GPL. Again, this precludes commercial re-use --
a good example of how many developers stamp the GPL on their code without
understanding the legalities or the implications.
>The code developed at Univ. of Utah, the OSKit proper, if you will,
>is under GPL (although note that other licensing terms are available).
It should not be. This is contrary to the stated purpose of the project.
How can one reduce the cost of OS R&D when one precludes businesses
from creating commercial OSes based on the kit?
>The code donated/borrowed from other projects, such as FreeBSD, are
>still under the original copyright of the project (of course, since
>that cannot legally be changed).
That's not what that "License policy" says. This group is attempting to
relicense BSD-licensed code under the GPL, both by stamping the GPL
on it and by using it for the package as a whole.
--Brett Glass
Joe McGuckin
Also, I wouldn't think that it is proper to slap a GNU style copyleft
on software that was funded by the government (in this case, DARPA).
Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications
1235 Pear Ave, Suite 107
Mountain View, CA 90403
Phone: 650-969-2203
Cell: 415-710-4894
Fax: 650-969-2124
Jacques Vidrine
> Use the links, Luke. ;-) Follow the link with the text "Licensing
> policy" midway down the page. It leads to the following:
Yes, and that clearly states to see doc/licensing.tex for ``credits
and exceptions''.
[snip]
> There's no mention of the fact that it is per se illegal to relicense
> BSD code under the GPL.
1) See doc/licensing.tex.
2) Who in their right mind would think that they can change the license
on a given piece of software if they have no copyright on the
software?
> >What is ``the COMPILATION copyright''? I don't follow.
>
> It's a basic concept of copyright law. When you compile a collection
> of material, you own a copyright on the way the collection is compiled
> (the selection of elements and the way in which they're linked together)
> even if you don't own all of the component parts.
Thanks, it is clear to me what you mean now. Again, this doesn't
seem to cause any problems ... the various borrowed bits of software
still retain their original copyright.
[snip]
> >The code developed at Univ. of Utah, the OSKit proper, if you will,
> >is under GPL (although note that other licensing terms are available).
>
> It should not be. This is contrary to the stated purpose of the project.
> How can one reduce the cost of OS R&D when one precludes businesses
> from creating commercial OSes based on the kit?
I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I advocate BSD-like licenses
over GPL. It is the University's perogative to license its software
as it sees fit, however. It is also tangential to the subject of this
thread: ``Attempt to relicense BSD code under the GPL'' -- a subject
which I still say is bogus in this case. There has been no attempt
by the project to ``relicense BSD code under the GPL''.
> >The code donated/borrowed from other projects, such as FreeBSD, are
> >still under the original copyright of the project (of course, since
> >that cannot legally be changed).
>
> That's not what that "License policy" says. This group is attempting to
> relicense BSD-licensed code under the GPL, both by stamping the GPL
> on it and by using it for the package as a whole.
That _is_ what it says. Read. Show me where it says that, e.g.,
the FreeBSD C library is under GPL.
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / nec...@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Brett Glass
>> >What is ``the COMPILATION copyright''? I don't follow.
>>
>> It's a basic concept of copyright law. When you compile a collection
>> of material, you own a copyright on the way the collection is compiled
>> (the selection of elements and the way in which they're linked together)
>> even if you don't own all of the component parts.
>
>Thanks, it is clear to me what you mean now. Again, this doesn't
>seem to cause any problems ... the various borrowed bits of software
>still retain their original copyright.
Ah, but the significant part of the OSKit project is the way in which
they are glued together. And THAT is under the GPL.
Look at the site more closely. There are several examples of companies
who have created specialized embedded OSes for their products using
the kit. They're now out of luck.... They'd have to give away their
hard work to keep doing it.
>> How can one reduce the cost of OS R&D when one precludes businesses
>> from creating commercial OSes based on the kit?
>
>I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I advocate BSD-like licenses
>over GPL. It is the University's perogative to license its software
>as it sees fit, however.
The software was paid for by OUR money -- by a government grant. The
University has no right to restrict our use of it.
>It is also tangential to the subject of this
>thread: ``Attempt to relicense BSD code under the GPL'' -- a subject
>which I still say is bogus in this case. There has been no attempt
>by the project to ``relicense BSD code under the GPL''.
Yes, there is. The collection includes BSD code and is licensed as
a whole under the GPL. It's thus "infected." For good.
--Brett Glass
Jacques Vidrine
[snip]
> Look at the site more closely. There are several examples of companies
> who have created specialized embedded OSes for their products using
> the kit. They're now out of luck.... They'd have to give away their
> hard work to keep doing it.
What is your point? Those companies made a decision when they
selected software that is GPL'd. A bad decision, IMO, and yours
too, I would gather.
[snip]
> >I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I advocate BSD-like licenses
> >over GPL. It is the University's perogative to license its software
> >as it sees fit, however.
>
> The software was paid for by OUR money -- by a government grant. The
> University has no right to restrict our use of it.
Again, this has nothing to do with BSD code being ``relicensed'' as
GPL code.
Not to mention the fact that your statement is absurd -- I suppose
that we American citizens should have full access to all code written
by the U.S. Government because we paid for it?
> Yes, there is. The collection includes BSD code and is licensed as
> a whole under the GPL. It's thus "infected." For good.
Brett, have you even read the doc/licensing.tex file? Quoting:
Because much of the code in the \oskit\ was ``donated'' by external
projects there are a plethora of additional copyrights and licences,
but their requirements are straightforward.
[snip]
To help clarify matters, the Acknowledgements section, below,
describes which parts of the \oskit\ are covered by which license(s).
[snip -- the Acknowledgements section is more than verbose enough]
Have you even looked at the distribution? Source files from other
projects retain the original copyright notice.
I asked for you to show me where any BSD code was being presented with
a GPL license (but you snipped that). I take it that you have not
found any? I have seen some files that have a mix of BSD and
University of Utah code, and bear both GPL and BSD copyright notices
at the top. This is sloppy, and will probably result in troubles for
someone someday (recall UCB/AT&T's troubles). But it is hardly the
transgression that you seem to want it to be.
I think you do a great disservice to the open software community
by slinging this mud, meritless as it is.
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / nec...@FreeBSD.org
Brett Glass
>On 18 January 1999 at 13:40, Brett Glass <br...@lariat.org> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Look at the site more closely. There are several examples of companies
>> who have created specialized embedded OSes for their products using
>> the kit. They're now out of luck.... They'd have to give away their
>> hard work to keep doing it.
>
>What is your point? Those companies made a decision when they
>selected software that is GPL'd.
Again, read the Web site. They did NOT select software that was GPLed.
The January 15th release of the OSKit is the first one that the University
has released under the GPL.
>A bad decision, IMO, and yours too, I would gather.
Nope. I would never make such a decision. However, I am greatly concerned
about the ugly trend toward "infection" of software by the GPL.
>> The software was paid for by OUR money -- by a government grant. The
>> University has no right to restrict our use of it.
>
>Again, this has nothing to do with BSD code being ``relicensed'' as
>GPL code.
Not directly. However, it is also true that a compilation including
BSD code is being released under the GPL.
>Not to mention the fact that your statement is absurd -- I suppose
>that we American citizens should have full access to all code written
>by the U.S. Government because we paid for it?
Certainly if it is paid for by government grants to academic institutions.
Where do you think BSD came from?
>I asked for you to show me where any BSD code was being presented with
>a GPL license (but you snipped that).
No, I answered that. The work as a whole, which incorporates BSD code,
is licensed under the GPL. And should not be.
--Brett
Terry Lambert
> R&D) but also illegal, because it conflicts with the licensing
> provisions of the BSD code which has been incorporated into the
> package.
The conflict is an artifact of the GPL, not of the BSD license.
In fact, it's possible to "copyleft" BSD licensed code, as has
been demonstrated by the Sendmail and BSD DB code with the
sendmail license and the "sleepycat" license, respectively.
> P.S. -- Perhaps it is time to add a clause to the BSD license used
> in FreeBSD specifically prohibiting relicensing of that code, or
> derivative works, under the GPL.
I've previously suggested adding a "poison pill", either like
the SSLeay license immutability clause (which would be onerous
to a number of potential commercial uses of the code -- a bad
thing), or a less restrictive:
5. This software and derivative works thereof are prohibited from
being licensed under terms that require the distribution of
the source code for this software or derivative works thereof.
This *really* needs consideration by Jordan and others in charge
of the licensing.
Terry Lambert
te...@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Jacques Vidrine
> Again, read the Web site. They did NOT select software that was GPLed.
> The January 15th release of the OSKit is the first one that the University
> has released under the GPL.
Then previous releases are not GPL and the companies are not bound
by it. Again, this is not relevant to this discussion (re:
``Attempt to relicense BSD code under the GPL'').
> >A bad decision, IMO, and yours too, I would gather.
>
> Nope. I would never make such a decision. However, I am greatly concerned
> about the ugly trend toward "infection" of software by the GPL.
Yes, I meant ``A bad decision'' In My Opinion and probably In Your
Opinion also.
> Not directly. However, it is also true that a compilation including
> BSD code is being released under the GPL.
Fair enough. Might I suggest that you start a thread regarding
why this is bad, and what arguments one should use to discourage
it?
While you are at it, you may want to include FreeBSD in the discussion--
after all, FreeBSD is a compilation which includes software under the
BSD license and the GPL, and possibly others.
> Certainly if it is paid for by government grants to academic institutions.
> Where do you think BSD came from?
UCB invented the BSD license. The government did not tell UCB to use
this license. UCB chose this type of license. University of Utah
has chosen GPL.
There is no reason that the University cannot GPL the code. Again,
I wouldn't make the same decision, but it is not my decision to make,
nor yours.
> >I asked for you to show me where any BSD code was being presented with
> >a GPL license (but you snipped that).
>
> No, I answered that. The work as a whole, which incorporates BSD code,
> is licensed under the GPL. And should not be.
Gee, I still haven't seen anything in the license statements to that
affect.
Jacques Vidrine / n...@nectar.com / nec...@FreeBSD.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Daniel C. Sobral
>
> According to the Web page at
>
> http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flexmach/oskit/index.html
>
> The latest version of the "OSKit", whose STATED goal is to lower
> the barrier to entry to OS R&D, has just been re-released UNDER
> THE GPL.
>
> R&D) but also illegal, because it conflicts with the licensing
> provisions of the BSD code which has been incorporated into the
> package.
>
> (which is anti-business, anti-innovation, and sometimes referred
> to as a "viral" or "cult" license) on BSD code should contact Jay
> Lepreau at lep...@cs.utah.edu. Kernel authors in particular should
> be outraged at the unauthorized and unwarranted GPLing of their code
> and should protested what is, essentially, hijacking of their work.
Mind you,
> Re licensing, the OSKit comes with full source, and is GPL'ed; "open
> source" is now the "in" term apparently. If a business or someone has
> trouble with the GPL, the University is willing to talk about other options.
Also, there is something about exceptions, but I could not get to
the file. So, maybe the BSD source is still under BSD.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
If you sell your soul to the Devil and all you get is an MCSE from
it, you haven't gotten market rate.
Sean Eric Fagan
especially copyright, would bring up these kinds of discussions. And, no, I
don't consider either Terry nor Brett to fit into that category. (Sorry.)
That said:
In article <36A3B5D9.775BEE30.k...@newsguy.com> you write:
>Also, there is something about exceptions, but I could not get to
>the file. So, maybe the BSD source is still under BSD.
Nobody but the author(s) (or the peron(s) the author(s) has(have) authorized
in writing, with an exchange of goods for good measure) can change the
licensing terms of any copywritten work. (Excluding the gov't and other
extreme cases.)
However, it is entirely possible to take a BSD-licensed piece of code, slap a
GPL on it, and be fully legal. The trick, which I think is obvious and
so should anyone who actually thinks about it (ref. my initial comment),
is that the new license only covers any changes made to the original. There
are some potentially interesting conflicts w.r.t. advertising and whatnot,
but, for the most part, this is doable and has been done in the past, and will
be done again in the future.
This comes up fairly often with public-domain works (both code and other).
Although I strongly urge that everyone read the hideous "Digital Millennium
Copyright Act" as well, because it changes a bunch of stuff.
bos...@bostic.com
tlam...@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) wrote:
> In fact, it's possible to "copyleft" BSD licensed code, as has
> been demonstrated by the Sendmail and BSD DB code with the
> sendmail license and the "sleepycat" license, respectively.
I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make, but I
don't think that Berkeley DB and the Sleepycat license, or
Sendmail are examples.
Berkeley DB as distributed by UC Berkeley was 8K lines of code.
Berkeley DB as distributed by Sleepycat is 100K lines of code,
hundreds of pages of documentation, a test suite and so on.
There must be 20 lines of the UC code still left, but it would
take some hunting to find them.
I'm less sure about Sendmail and obviously don't speak for them,
but I don't think it's an example either. The Sendmail MTA,
(i.e., everything originally done at or near Berkeley) is still
under the UC Berkeley license, as far as I know. Sendmail Inc.
expects to make money by adding value to the base product, not
by changing the redistribution rules.
--keith
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Keith Bostic bos...@bostic.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
txjo...@my-dejanews.com
has been flying so fast and furious that the admins have create a new
list just to talk about it.
I for one think its wrong. It's my tax dollars provided by my gov't.
I want to to benefit from the research in my own work. I also want that
benefit in any program I buy.
You might want to subscribe by sending subscribe to:
oskit-flam...@flux.cs.utah.edu
Then you can put your $.02 in there.