motivations of bsd licensing

[uptonm]

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

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

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

Please set this idea aside.

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

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

There is nothing legally wrong with a company making billions of euros or dollars using BSD or ISC licensed software, as long as the license is adhered to. Without giving back anything to anyone. Some few do, most don't. But the freedoms granted by the license are just that ... freedoms.

thats fine and i have no problem with anybody making money, i think what i misunderstand was the intentions of bsd. i think now they seem to be code for the sake of code, not code for the sake of a community, or a chance to give without expecting to receive. my own personal philosophies don't adhere to gnu, btw.

if that is your true philosophy, then there is no room for any bitterness about adobe not making flash available on the bsd desktop in light of adobe's use of bsd code. ive seen some bsd desktop users upset on the net over the apparent discrepencies, and i can only imply that not everyone who uses bsd on the desktop adhere's to its philosophy. thats never happened before! ;)

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

about 4 or so years back i had a problem with my sister. she would ask me to watch her baby every day. i did not have a problem with giving without hope of receiving. what i had a problem with was her attitude of entitlement. i do not mind helping and probably did watch her baby about 50-100 times, and would have been willing to help more, but she was of the belief (and was vocal about this belief) that it was her right and my responsibility to do this. when i approached her about this attitude, she became very upset.i told her that because of this attitude, i would not watch her child until she changed it.

that's cool that those who develop under this license do what they do. i personally would not do the same. my smaller expressions of good will are for the deserving and undeserving, just random people. a smile, lending a hand, or helping to move. its all relative, if i were very wealthy, and a person i didn't know needed a thousand bucks for something, i would give it. i reserve the larger expressions that involve a lot of my time, effort, etc. to those who deserve it. and in the end i have my priorities. i would work using the great portion of my life for reward and benefit, for my good, the good of my family, and those around me. (i feel money is a very powerful tool for helping others.)
anyways, thats where i stand.
anyone care to chat about the philosophy behind bsd?

[ai-danno]

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

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

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

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

To get a better idea of "expectations", here's Theo's take on it (http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=121562766722357&w=2).

[ai-danno]

And to add, this philosophy (and a few others) are not shared completely amongst the three main BSD's. You may find a different take on the philosophies of different OS's (go figure!)

[DrJ]

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

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

The situation is better for PDFs, since a detailed specification on the file format is available, and viewers based on Poppler are getting much better.

[BSDfan666]

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

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

http://www.daemonforums.org/showpost.php?p=11254&postcount=27

[uptonm]

Adobe does not use BSD code to my knowledge.



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

http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/flashplayer/

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

thats partly what i was trying to understand. its interesting from an anthroplogical perspective.

[DrJ]

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

You may know that all of the BSD operating systems originate from the original UC Berkeley code, and since they do so, they have to include the Berkeley license. That's the deal.
i suppose in light of referring to the fight club rules, and understanding further the nature of the relationship of openbsd with its users in the link provided by ai-danno, my comment on bitterness in the users is further irrelevant
Yes, it is. But do understand that Open is a bit more extreme than Free in this belief, and that it does not mean that the developers do not care about their product. For example, I have found the FreeBSD Gnome team to be extraordinarily responsive in all aspects about their interest. They do what they have to do, in an impressively fast and honest manner. It is just that the developers do what they are interested in, and no more. The same is true for Linux, BTW.

[uptonm]

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

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

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

i can fully understand, appreciate and agree with that. again, thanks. it is a wonderful thing to use code of this quality with nothing expected in return.

[robbak]

For me, the whole idea of "Enforcing Freedoms" makes no sense. If you are enforcing something, you are removing freedoms.
If you want your code to be free, then dump it in the public domain. You cannot get free-er than that. BSD simply adds "don't patent this, don't sue me", which are reasonable restrictions.
Another philosophy behind BSD is 're-authoring code for any reason (apart from code quality, performance etc.) is a criminal waste of resources.' The BSD licence (often called "copycenter", as in "take it down to the copy center and do what you like with it.") ensures that anyone can use BSD code, and if BSD has done it, you do not need to re-do it. GPL restrictions mean that the code often has to be re-written for legal reasons. I think that is unfortunate.
Personally, I think that restricting use of code to other open-source projects is not a reasonable restriction, and largely negates the benefits of releasing source. But that is just me.

[uptonm]

The BSD licence (often called "copycenter", as in "take it down to the copy center and do what you like with it.")


that sounds good. i agree that it sounds a lot more free. i tend to be more conservative in my thinking and i think gnu is not wholly a bad thing but the attitudes of many in that camp (not all) are anti capitalist which is foolish, and smack too much of communism. my only take on the subject towards holding companies accountable was that i do not like to see people being taken advantage of either, but i realize now this is not the case with bsd.

i do not believe money is evil, i believe it is a tool. i think it is a bad idea to place it in the wrong priority, or become a tool yourself.

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I think that it really depends on the creator of the code, and what they want to do with it that determines the license that is used. If the creator of the code doesn't want to share it, that is there prerogative. If the creator places it under GPL, that is there choice - don't complain about it, if you don't like that choice don't use their code. Same goes to those who license under BSD who get flak from the GPL folks (more on this below).

Some people code solely to get paid - there is nothing wrong with that, they are entitled to renumeration for their work. Some code solely to contribute to a project, it is almost (or in fact is) a hobby for them. Some want to contribute to FOSS, but are faced with the hard facts that they have to eat, too. I think the best solution to this is a dual license, like what Apache (and many others) do. Their attitude is that if you are using this for some free application, go ahead and use it - but, if you are making money off of my work, I want a piece of the action.

The biggest complaint I have heard from the GPL crowd against the BSD license is the so called 'advertising clause'. It reads in the license:

3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:

This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

The first point is, if the GPL folks don't like that restriction, don't use the software - go write it yourself if you want the functionality so bad. Second, why complain, it is the original creators right to receive credit where credit is due if that is what they so choose. Some may not care about acknowledgment, or may wish to stay out of the limelight, or just simply contribute without need of any fame. That is their choice. Many others do want to be acknowledged for the contributions they have made - that is their choice, too.

The biggest complaint is that the clause requires the printing of names, and a full-fledge product - say a Linux distro or office suite - would need a full page ad to print them all. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice - but the way I read the clause, it only applies when the code is mentioned. For example, say their was a BSD licensed program that gave IPv6 functionality (call it sixip - a new Linux distro named Xunil has incorporated that program into their code base and wants to advertise in the Distro Daily newspaper. If they simply say - "Xunil - Linux for you", with a nice picture - there is no need of printing the advertising clause. But, if the add said - "Xunil, now with sixip", or "Xunil - Linux for you" and in the list of features it lists IPv6 - then the advertising clause would take effect.

[BSDfan666]

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

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

See: /usr/share/misc/license.template

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

and NetBSD has also started removing those terms.

NetBSD licensing information can be found here - NetBSD Licensing and Redistribution (http://www.netbsd.org/about/redistribution.html)

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

Personally, I don't need the fame - my name in the code is more than enough for me (even if I go dual license). I am fine with the current NetBSD license, though the endorsement clause would be good to prevent others from putting words in your mouth or having your name favorably attached to something you are against.

[BSDfan666]

http://www.osnews.com/story/19898/NetBSD_Moves_to_2_Clause_BSD_License
http://www.netbsd.org/about/redistribution.html#why2clause

I don't lie.. ;)

[lvlamb]

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

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

Chances are that, when you develop code and provide it under ISC license (a k a "BSD two-term copyright") your code already has been discussed and improved on one of the many mailing lists, hence, have made your contribution to open source before even publishing the code.
Makes GPL2 look funny at best.

[Werpon]

For me, the whole idea of "Enforcing Freedoms" makes no sense. If you are enforcing something, you are removing freedoms.
If you want your code to be free, then dump it in the public domain. You cannot get free-er than that. BSD simply adds "don't patent this, don't sue me", which are reasonable restrictions.
Another philosophy behind BSD is 're-authoring code for any reason (apart from code quality, performance etc.) is a criminal waste of resources.' The BSD licence (often called "copycenter", as in "take it down to the copy center and do what you like with it.") ensures that anyone can use BSD code, and if BSD has done it, you do not need to re-do it. GPL restrictions mean that the code often has to be re-written for legal reasons. I think that is unfortunate.
Personally, I think that restricting use of code to other open-source projects is not a reasonable restriction, and largely negates the benefits of releasing source. But that is just me.

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

In other words, the GPL seeks freedom for final users and developers, and achieves it with a greater success than the BSD license. Furthermore, most open source / free software developers prefer it (just count the successful projects). I think it has something to do with nobody else making a profit from your hard work, and I understand it.

[ocicat]

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

[Werpon]

Where is the GPL police who makes sure that any customizations/improvements are given back to the community? Oh, that's right; there isn't any... :rolleyes:

They're called gpl-violations.org (http://gpl-violations.org) and they are doing a fine job, thanks :cool:

Even if nobody policed licenses, that doesn't mean you should give away your code if you don't really want to, or take another people's code without permission.

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Where is the GPL police who makes sure that any customizations/improvements are given back to the community? Oh, that's right; there isn't any... :rolleyes:

I've heard that the FSF is itching for a big violation it can take to court to 'prove' the effectiveness of the GPL.

[ninjatux]

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

In other words, the GPL seeks freedom for final users and developers, and achieves it with a greater success than the BSD license. Furthermore, most open source / free software developers prefer it (just count the successful projects). I think it has something to do with nobody else making a profit from your hard work, and I understand it.

This reminds of Debian forums. You sound like a GNU zealot. GPL only keeps the original code free in the face of commercialization.

[Carpetsmoker]

What exactly are the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3? And why won't projects like FreeBSD include GPLv3 code? I can't find any human-readable explanation, and personally I think it's easier to translate the complete works of Shakespeare to Chines than translate this lawyer talk to English.

[BSDfan666]

The tivoization clauses are pretty despicable.