Comments on: BSD License Explained In Layman Terms http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/ Linux. GNU. Freedom. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:07:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-hemorrhage hourly 1 By: Glen http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-66690 Glen Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:55:21 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-66690 Perhaps also important: <a href="http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/2007/08/study-reduced-open-source-developer.html" rel="nofollow"> Study: Reduced Open Source developer productivity linked to "restrictive" FLOSS licenses (where "restrictive"=GPL and non-restrictive=BSD)</a>. Perhaps also important:
Study: Reduced Open Source developer productivity linked to “restrictive” FLOSS licenses (where “restrictive”=GPL and non-restrictive=BSD).

]]> By: Aaron http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64588 Aaron Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:00:39 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64588 @jldugger- Yes. Simple typo, actually. Updated with the fix. Thanks for the heads up. @jldugger- Yes. Simple typo, actually. Updated with the fix. Thanks for the heads up.

]]> By: jldugger http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64586 jldugger Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:36:46 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64586 Lest this post become part of the interpretation of BSD, let's clarify that you're not allowed to use the name of the originating Parent Company, not "your" parent company, without permission. One makes sense, the other does not. Lest this post become part of the interpretation of BSD, let’s clarify that you’re not allowed to use the name of the originating Parent Company, not “your” parent company, without permission. One makes sense, the other does not.

]]> By: new back http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64571 new back Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:34:07 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64571 That is true, you can't change the license. But, if you are not distriuting the work further you don't have to give out the modified source code either. You can't build an obligation (under present terms) that internally only used copies should all be published. And that's what providing a service in fact is under at least the terms used in GPLv2. That is true, you can’t change the license. But, if you are not distriuting the work further you don’t have to give out the modified source code either. You can’t build an obligation (under present terms) that internally only used copies should all be published. And that’s what providing a service in fact is under at least the terms used in GPLv2.

]]> By: Aaron http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64568 Aaron Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:17:02 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64568 @new back- Incorrect. Any derivative work of GPL-licensed code must also retain the GPL license, regardless. GPL code prevents the work from becoming proprietary. @new back- Incorrect. Any derivative work of GPL-licensed code must also retain the GPL license, regardless. GPL code prevents the work from becoming proprietary.

]]> By: new back http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64559 new back Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:04:50 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64559 To clarify this. I was referring to creating a derivative using previously GPL-licensed software, and not having to release the code. I could take some GPL'd webmail code, modify it heavily, start charging people for the magnificent new service, and never have to release a thing. In the service case the GPLv2 at least does not force me to release anything no matter how much GPL'd software I use and for what. It is really obvious from the license when you investigate it objectively. Freedom is good. I don't believe in forced freedom. Maturing is a process that should be nurtured and guided, not forced. It won't succeed (well) that way. To clarify this.

I was referring to creating a derivative using previously GPL-licensed software, and not having to release the code. I could take some GPL’d webmail code, modify it heavily, start charging people for the magnificent new service, and never have to release a thing. In the service case the GPLv2 at least does not force me to release anything no matter how much GPL’d software I use and for what. It is really obvious from the license when you investigate it objectively.

Freedom is good. I don’t believe in forced freedom. Maturing is a process that should be nurtured and guided, not forced. It won’t succeed (well) that way.

]]> By: Aaron http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64555 Aaron Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:13:55 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64555 @Joseph Scott- Yes. Any BSD-licensed derivative can be relicensed. I am not granted the right to change the BSD-licensed software itself, only derivative works. @Nobody- Yes. BSD is not a copyleft license, as it is not GPL compatible. However, a license being copyleft doesn't mean a lot to most lay people. Only FSF and Gnu zealots worry about such things. Other people worry about productivity and practicality. @new back- It's one thing to use tools that are GPL to create a service or software from scratch. It's another to create a GPL-licensed derivative of the service or software, and not release the code. And yes, BSD is a truly liberating license. @Joseph Scott- Yes. Any BSD-licensed derivative can be relicensed. I am not granted the right to change the BSD-licensed software itself, only derivative works.

@Nobody- Yes. BSD is not a copyleft license, as it is not GPL compatible. However, a license being copyleft doesn’t mean a lot to most lay people. Only FSF and Gnu zealots worry about such things. Other people worry about productivity and practicality.

@new back- It’s one thing to use tools that are GPL to create a service or software from scratch. It’s another to create a GPL-licensed derivative of the service or software, and not release the code. And yes, BSD is a truly liberating license.

]]> By: new back http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64533 new back Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:55:29 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64533 If you provide a service such as Gmail using modified GPL'd components you don't have to release the modified source code. The SAAS situation (distributing the results that come out of software) is quite different from working with actually distributed software. There's really nothing in the license forcing you to do that. This is true at least for v2, I have not read v3 yet since no significant project is yet using it. The high level of freedom offered by BSD licenses is great. If you provide a service such as Gmail using modified GPL’d components you don’t have to release the modified source code. The SAAS situation (distributing the results that come out of software) is quite different from working with actually distributed software. There’s really nothing in the license forcing you to do that. This is true at least for v2, I have not read v3 yet since no significant project is yet using it.

The high level of freedom offered by BSD licenses is great.

]]> By: Nobody http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64532 Nobody Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:55:10 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64532 I believe the licenses mess won't be any clearer with the <a href="http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception" rel="nofollow">new trolltech gpl exception</a>. Anyway it's always good to remind clearly the point of most used licensed. I would add that BSD is not a copy-left license, it means you can modify the bsd-licensed code and use it as you want (redistribute the code in binary or source code format) without having to publish your modifications to anyone. I believe the licenses mess won’t be any clearer with the new trolltech gpl exception. Anyway it’s always good to remind clearly the point of most used licensed. I would add that BSD is not a copy-left license, it means you can modify the bsd-licensed code and use it as you want (redistribute the code in binary or source code format) without having to publish your modifications to anyone.

]]> By: Joseph Scott http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64512 Joseph Scott Thu, 09 Aug 2007 05:08:37 +0000 http://www.pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/#comment-64512 I don't think the BSD license grants people the ability to change the license of code exactly. Work based on BSD licensed code can be under a different license (like Mac OS X using FreeBSD code). That would be a situation where other licenses can apply. That is different than taking the BSD licensed dd implementation and then distributing it as is without modification under a different license. I don't believe the BSD license gives you the right to do that. I don’t think the BSD license grants people the ability to change the license of code exactly. Work based on BSD licensed code can be under a different license (like Mac OS X using FreeBSD code). That would be a situation where other licenses can apply.

That is different than taking the BSD licensed dd implementation and then distributing it as is without modification under a different license. I don’t believe the BSD license gives you the right to do that.

]]>