SCO reveals some "infringed" code...that was released under the BSD license!! MORONS!!
- Thread starter Flatline
- Start date
Can you have BSD licensed code inside of a GPLed application or whatever? Wouldn't that be a copyright violation?
"BSD-style" license:
http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf
From what it says, I think it is unlimited redistribution as long as copyright notice is maintained.
http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf
From what it says, I think it is unlimited redistribution as long as copyright notice is maintained.
BSD code can most definitely be in GPLed apps, but after that it "becomes" GPL code.
However - that was one thing that no article mentioned - WAS the copyright kept?
However - that was one thing that no article mentioned - WAS the copyright kept?
Three letter
I, for one, think that this entire SCO thing has become little more than a circus act. I don't think that it will have much of an effect on Linux, I do think that it will make the SCO execs more financially well off than they would have been and I also think that SCO will die a painful death.
It's really dual licensed, but since a BSD style license is so much less restrictive, anyone would be stupid to use it under the GPL, unless it is in a GPL app itself.
Heh, you'd be amazed at the legions of people that consider the BSD license "bad," or "legalized theft," or however they word it.
GPL liscence is made to compete with propriatory software, that's why it has the so called "virus-like" behavior. If I contribute to a GPL'ed program I can't turn around and say that this is my program, I have to respect the rights of others who contributed to it. If I was a author of a app that I released as a GPL'ed program I can still sell it to a company to be used in a completely propriatory closed source way I can do that legally, no problem. As long as I am the sole author, if others contribute their code I can't sell their code, because well... It's theirs, I can only sell into closed sourced what is mine. If a company takes a GPL'ed program they can distribute it along with propriatory systems as long as they honor the GPL status and contribute to it just like the original author(s) did. Of course I don't know why it gets this rap about being so restrictive, personally, but others of course feel differently.
BSD code on the other hand can never ever be competative with propriatory software. It's not designed to be. Its more of a academic thing were privite companies can change it or sell it as if they were the ones that created it. In that case the original author has no right to see how his product gets used, just as long as they get a line in the credits. Which ever one you feel like. The reason it cannot be competative in the open market is because if I make a nice program and it's better then a closed source product, then the closed-sourced company can just take it and add the better parts of theirs and mine and make a better program. Meanwhile I have no access to the improvements, which I have to pay for to get just like everyone else.
GPL is only restrictive in the fact that if you a company selling a GPL'ed product then you have to give the source code away. That's it. You can use it for what ever and forever you want it for. Hell you can even charge people for the service fees and the cost of the mediums involved in distributing the code.
however don't get me wrong. I beleive in both types of liscencing scemes and can understand were one may be more advantages in some situations and the other in other situations. There are also several other "free" liscences and such like the one for XFree86 and their are also artistic liscenses for digital art like jpegs and music which are not free, but are perfectly acceptable since they reflect personal expression and such. Their are also some literary liscences and so on and so forth.
Anyways back in the day, BSD was charged with using and distributing code from AT&T type Unix. So they completely rewrote the bits, and basicly redid it. Then they were taken to court and it was basicly dismissed. Later System-V type Unices stole BSD code by using it and not giving them credit. They also did use BSD code and did it legally. If you look here then it easy to understand how convoluted and how many hundreds of companies and thousands of people contributed to commercial and free versions of Unix. That's why SCO's claim on orignal AT&T IP is such BS, because the the original AT&T code is outclassed and superceded by newer versions such in the way that MSDOS 2.0 was superceded by later versions of Dos and eventually Windows OSes. Exept in the fact that SCO had little to do with the developement and MS did.
Anyways, you just can't take the code from SCO's kernel and graft it into Linux's kernel. They are just to completely alien. Linux may act like Unix to the end-user and most of it is Posix compliant, but it is actually a very very different OS kernel. And the bits that SCO claims they stole Linux actualy predates some of it like SMP support and does better then SCO like large volume support. The future 2.6.0 kernel with pretty much outclass SCO's high-end Unix in every way shape and form. In fact SCO is more expensive and is outclassed by pretty much every other unix variant out there.
SCO it's the only company using BSD code without admitting to it. MS windows also stole BSD code for the TCP/IP protocal stack. They stole it by not giving it credit and changed it enough so that is was slightly incompatable (and fragile/unstable enough) with the the original versions everyone else was using. That's why Bill Gates likes BSD liscence, because he can use it without reprocusions.
BSD code on the other hand can never ever be competative with propriatory software. It's not designed to be. Its more of a academic thing were privite companies can change it or sell it as if they were the ones that created it. In that case the original author has no right to see how his product gets used, just as long as they get a line in the credits. Which ever one you feel like. The reason it cannot be competative in the open market is because if I make a nice program and it's better then a closed source product, then the closed-sourced company can just take it and add the better parts of theirs and mine and make a better program. Meanwhile I have no access to the improvements, which I have to pay for to get just like everyone else.
GPL is only restrictive in the fact that if you a company selling a GPL'ed product then you have to give the source code away. That's it. You can use it for what ever and forever you want it for. Hell you can even charge people for the service fees and the cost of the mediums involved in distributing the code.
however don't get me wrong. I beleive in both types of liscencing scemes and can understand were one may be more advantages in some situations and the other in other situations. There are also several other "free" liscences and such like the one for XFree86 and their are also artistic liscenses for digital art like jpegs and music which are not free, but are perfectly acceptable since they reflect personal expression and such. Their are also some literary liscences and so on and so forth.
Anyways back in the day, BSD was charged with using and distributing code from AT&T type Unix. So they completely rewrote the bits, and basicly redid it. Then they were taken to court and it was basicly dismissed. Later System-V type Unices stole BSD code by using it and not giving them credit. They also did use BSD code and did it legally. If you look here then it easy to understand how convoluted and how many hundreds of companies and thousands of people contributed to commercial and free versions of Unix. That's why SCO's claim on orignal AT&T IP is such BS, because the the original AT&T code is outclassed and superceded by newer versions such in the way that MSDOS 2.0 was superceded by later versions of Dos and eventually Windows OSes. Exept in the fact that SCO had little to do with the developement and MS did.
Anyways, you just can't take the code from SCO's kernel and graft it into Linux's kernel. They are just to completely alien. Linux may act like Unix to the end-user and most of it is Posix compliant, but it is actually a very very different OS kernel. And the bits that SCO claims they stole Linux actualy predates some of it like SMP support and does better then SCO like large volume support. The future 2.6.0 kernel with pretty much outclass SCO's high-end Unix in every way shape and form. In fact SCO is more expensive and is outclassed by pretty much every other unix variant out there.
SCO it's the only company using BSD code without admitting to it. MS windows also stole BSD code for the TCP/IP protocal stack. They stole it by not giving it credit and changed it enough so that is was slightly incompatable (and fragile/unstable enough) with the the original versions everyone else was using. That's why Bill Gates likes BSD liscence, because he can use it without reprocusions.
A BSD style license also respects the rights of the authors. It is just different rights.
You give the example of Microsoft stealing BSD code. It is just as easy to steal GPL code, though.
I look at the BSD licesence as being able to compete with proprietary software much easier. If you want to compete with proprietary software, you can not release your source. Or you can release it to a limited number of people, or you can give it away. It's your choice. You can compete with the proprietary software in the way that is best for competing with that software. If the company is going to steal you code, they'll do it whether it is GPL or BSD.
You give the example of Microsoft stealing BSD code. It is just as easy to steal GPL code, though.
I look at the BSD licesence as being able to compete with proprietary software much easier. If you want to compete with proprietary software, you can not release your source. Or you can release it to a limited number of people, or you can give it away. It's your choice. You can compete with the proprietary software in the way that is best for competing with that software. If the company is going to steal you code, they'll do it whether it is GPL or BSD.
It's only as much theft as those places that have the cup that says "have a penny, give a penny; need a penny, take a penny"
Wrong. That is illegal, if I am reading the information I have correctly.
"GPLing" the program would "impose more restrictive conditions" and would be illegal according to copyright laws. I am not a lawyer though, so I could definitely be wrong.
Look at the BSD license itself.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
As long as the GPLed app included this text, then they have followed this rule
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.
Same deal
Neither the name of Foo nor the names of its contributors may be used to
endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior
written permission.
Easily avoided
That's it! follow those 3 rules and you're good to go.
Sorry drag, but although I usually enjoy your posts (the ones I can get all the way through with this short attention span), this part of your post is a wee bit off base. Or my head is on crooked again, one of the two
BSD licensed code is not designed to be competitive with proprietary code in the sense that the author generally doesn't give a damn whether you use it or not, he just needed that piece of software to work the way he wanted to. A company cannot say that they are the ones that created the program, the BSD license demands credit. The BSD license promotes ingenuity by allowing two companies to start with the same base, add their parts to it, and compete with each other.
And have only really started recovering in the past few years.
They are imposing more restrictive conditions on the derivative work, not the original. The original is out of their control - since they don't hold the copyright. However, they can get a copy of the original, and place more restrictions on their copy.
Sourcefire, RedHat, SuSE. Postfix is owned by IBM. Sendmail and Apache are pretty big too. Hell, even Apple open sources part of their OS.
They cannot place extra restrictions on the BSD licensed code. Part 2 of the GPL is extra restrictions. After the a, b, and c; we have
Which to me reads: This entire work must be licensed under the GPL. There may be something else in that long license stating that a GPLed work must be 100% GPL, but I don't feel like reading the entire thing.
Now, the code taken from a BSD licensed piece is still under the BSD license, *NOT* the GPL because random people cannot change the copyright on a work. Since that part of the code is under the BSD license, and not the GPL, the GPL is invalid because the entire work cannot fall under the GPL. Correct? Or did I miss a part of the BSD license that gives away the right to change the license?
It can be licensed under the GPL, because it is a copy and/or dervativative work, not the original. I could go release OpenBSD under the GPL if I wanted right now, because it would be something else. I could not use the name OpenBSD, I would have to name it something else, however, I could say that it's a GPLed OS based on OpenBSD. In no way does this change the fact that OpenBSD itself is still under the BSD license. I can't change that.
It places 3 restrictions upon the licensee, and none of those stop you from changing the license on your copy/derivation.
Because copyright has no relevant impact on what I'm talking about. The original author(s) have copyright on the original work, and according to the license, you must always disclose that in your code or documentation. This means that you can't say "Yeah, I wrote this all by myself." It also means that you can't use the same name for it, since that name is copyrighted to the original author. However, the code itself, although copyrighted (i.e. you have to give credit where it is due), the license permits you to modify it and do almost anything you want with it, provided you include the copyright notice and the list of conditions.
So if I copy a movie, I can release my copy, with maybe a quick little change of title for free? No. Why? Because of copyright laws. Copyright laws do not give anyone but the copyright holder the right to change the license. Changing the license is exactly what you are talking about. The BSD license does not give anyone the right to change the license of any software that falls under that license. The license itself restricts you in 3 ways, the laws restrict you in more.
I believe the way copyright works is that you have absolutely no rights to a work you do not own. The license gives you rights to use, view, modify, whatever the license states to that work. Any rights not given to you by the copyright owner (the one that chose the license) are the rights of the copyright holder alone. Any additional restrictions of course, must be followed. So, since the BSD license does not give anyone rights to change the license, that is the right of the copyright holder alone.
You keep speaking about the licensee changing the license of the original work. Of course they can't, nor are they. They are changing the license of their copy or derivation.
RTFM
I know there are tons of GPLed apps out there that use BSD code.OK I RTFMed for you
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
You keep speaking about the licensee changing the license of the original work. Of course they can't, nor are they. They are changing the license of their copy or derivation.
RTFM
OK I RTFMed for you
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
Your source is as biased as mine. What I am saying is that any code taken out of a BSD licensed work, cannot be GPLed. It still falls under the same terms of the BSD license, no more, no less. That part of the work is still BSD licensed. Just because you take a small part of that work does not mean that small part is license-less and copyright-less. Since it is copyrighted by the author, and licensed under the BSD license, no other restrictions may be placed on that code. The BSD license does not grant anyone the permission to change the license. It does not mention giving up all rights to derivative works.
If you can explain how a derivitive work legally gets around the license, please do. I guess I don't understand how taking a part of the code can remove all restrictions. If that is true, I can think of a bunch of GPLed programs I'd like to have parts of.
EDIT: Ok, with a derived work, the GPL would be the license of the whole, but the part taken from a BSD licensed work would still fall under the BSD license. But I figured, with the viral clause of the GPL, each individual part would have to fall under the GPL, not just the entire work as a whole. Is this the general jist of things?
AFAIK, any and everything in a GPLed app has to stay GPLed unless the author explicitly releases it under another license.
The BSD license is able to be overriden, because it does not explicitly disallow it. As long as the copyright and other few things are maintained as the license specifies, you can add whatever other restrictions you want, as long as they don't conflict. Just like a company can place the restriction of "neener neener, you can't see the code now."
Seems like you're suggesting that the BSD license is viral like the GPL, which seems odd, coming from you.
The BSD license is able to be overriden, because it does not explicitly disallow it. As long as the copyright and other few things are maintained as the license specifies, you can add whatever other restrictions you want, as long as they don't conflict. Just like a company can place the restriction of "neener neener, you can't see the code now."
Seems like you're suggesting that the BSD license is viral like the GPL, which seems odd, coming from you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter