Submitted by “The GNU General Public License is one of the most widely used software licenses – and, undoubtedly, the most misunderstood. Some of this misunderstanding comes from hostile propaganda, but some also comes from a lack of experience in licensing issues on the part of both lawyers and lay users, and the use of standard language in conventional end-user license agreements that are unthinkingly coupled with the GPL. In all cases, the confusion is frequently based on misreadings, rumors, secondhand accounts, and what is convenient to believe.”
“Derivative work” is a term that is defined in copyright law. The author dings the GPL for not defining that term clearly, but the GPL does not get to define that term.
One problem is people only looking at part of a requirment and thinking it applies.
Why do people keep stating that the most you can charge for source distribution is actual cost? That is in one particular circumstance only. Understanding of that part would of helped out in the recent cipherfunk mess.
“Why do people keep stating that the most you can charge for source distribution is actual cost? That is in one particular circumstance only. Understanding of that part would of helped out in the recent cipherfunk mess.”
From the article:
“…and section 3b, which states that source code must be provided “for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution.””
Baasically you are right. The source code must be distributed at no more then the cost of distribution. This does not cover the binary distribution which you can charge as much for as you want. So in the cipherfunk thing he could have charged a fee for access to the source repositories, been perfectly legal in doing so, and this would be a non-issue. The idea is you can’t make money off the source code, but since the FTP was costing him money, he could have charged. No where does it say the source has to be provided totally free of charge though.
Even the article only quotes that one part and seem to imply that is the only method for satisfying source code distribution. That part only applies in a certain situation – which is when you do not provide the source with the binary and it is a written offer that conveys the actual cost provision.
The problem with cipherfunk was that he was offering the binary free of charge yet charging a fee for access to source code.
He could of pulled the free binary and been still charged the same amount for the binary and the source and been just fine. He is welcome to provide me the files and I will do exactly that.
In fact, if he was upset what he should of done was charge $5000 for the binary and $5000 for the source code. Then see if Ubuntu would of bought it!
I think the more important idea is: You can’t make the source unavailable by appointing any price, like say, $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD.
As long as you are charging $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD for the binary then you certainly can charge that for the source as well.
You just cant sucker someone by giving them the binary for $1 and THEN later saying the source is a billion bucks. That is the reason for the written offer and the requirement of ‘actual cost’ in that situation.
Edited 2006-08-31 00:50
As long as you are charging $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD for the binary then you certainly can charge that for the source as well.
Er, no. Read again:
“for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution.”
You’d have a hard time justifying that price as being your cost even if you built the starship Enterprise to personally beam the source code to every person between here and Rigel 7.
The requirement dates back to a pre-broadband time when source code was often photocopied and mailed, or provided on disks. The clause is there simply to ensure people don’t face undue costs in providing source distribution, it’s not intended to be a profit center or a deterent to requesting source.
Uh read the whole section. That is my pet peeve is everyone quotes part of it and thinks that is all that applies. This is the whole part of that section…
——————-
3b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
———————–
The only time that requirement comes into it is when you have not provided the source at the same time as the binary but have instead elected to provide a written offer that in the future you may receieve source code at actual cost. That way someone cannot surprise you later with the amount which would effectively render the binary closed since you got the binary for a certain amount that you could afford but cannot afford the source code. So to make sure that would not happen this clause was put in. I mean if the binary had been a million dollars then you would be well aware that the source code would likely cost you just as much and if you can afford one you can afford the other. You are right it does date back to before broadband was common and that section was never meant to apply to a download anyway. RMS and Novalis will both tell you that. How can a written offer accompany a digital download?
Why would anyone truly want to go this route anyway unless they truly think nobody will request it anyway. This means for three years, even if you pull the binary next week you will have to provide source for three years if you choose this method.
As you can see by this section…
——————-
3a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
——————–
If you go this route you are not limited by what you can charge. I can offer you a download of my binary and of my source and as long as I offer equivalent access which would be equal in regards to price as well as availability then I am not limited in what I can charge.
As I said cipherfunk could of done this as well if he thought it was worth a fee.
Edited 2006-08-31 02:54
——————-
3a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
——————–
This is actually very important.
Simply put, if you create a binary distribution, and bundle the source code with it, then the only person/party you are OBLIGATED to give the source to is the person that you gave the binary too, and you met that obligation by bunlding the source code with the binary distribution.
You are not obligated to give the source code to any one else. “I’m sorry, we do not distribute the source code independently of the packaged product.”
If you go with “3b”, then you must make the software available to any 3rd party, and you must also keep it available for 3 years. With “3a”, you do not. You can ship the binary and its source code and be done with no further obligation imposed by the license.
Now, of course there is nothing stopping someone that you have given the source code to from redistributing it, but they are not obligated in any way to do that either.
I see your point. Never thought about it but it would seem to be saying exactly that.
I have always felt that 3b was a insane choice simply due to the three years and the actual cost but your point makes it even insane(r) that they will have to do that for everyone that gets passed the written offer also. As RMS has stated over and over – it is just better if you include the source to begin with. He really means it is better for you and everyone involved.
Of course the point I want to drive home is – YES YOU CAN CHARGE FOR SOURCE CODE!
It does not HAVE to be only actual cost except in that one circumstance.
From Wikipedia:
“Critics of the GPL often describe it as being “viral”, based on the GPL terms that all derived works must in turn be licensed under the GPL. Since the definition of “derived work” is commonly interpreted to include software containing GPLed code or dynamically linking to GPLed libraries (see above), the “virus” complaint comes from the view that the GPL forces its terms onto all other software whose authors choose to add GPLed code to their own. This is part of a philosophical difference between the GPL and permissive free software licenses such as the BSD-style licenses, which put fewer restrictions on derived works. While proponents of the GPL believe that free software should ensure that its freedoms are preserved in derivative works, others believe that free software should give its users the maximum freedom to redistribute it as they wish.“
And here start up the “more freedom” discussions comparing GPL to BSD style licenses…
I have said this before, but it really does bear repeating: Which license do you consider to better promote the freedom of the software code? One that allows any entity to “posess” it, and to make secret and proprietary changes when they redistribute in binary-only form? Or one that forbids this “owning” of secret changes in code being re-distributed?
BSD style licenses offer much more freedom to the individuals in posession of the code, while GPL style licenses restrict the freedoms of the (re)distributer to ensure the code, and changes to it, is available to the whole community.
Is is closer to the individual versus collective freedoms discussions. Neither one is an absolute greater “right” when discussing freedoms. It is a matter of your perspective on the importance of [u]who[/u] retains the priority.
” And here start up the “more freedom” discussions ”
No , here you start your proven false lies.
“more freedom”
* If you are already free how can you get more free ?
You are Free or You are not , there is no middle ground.
* How can you get Freedom by closing freedom to all and others ?
“comparing GPL to BSD style licenses… ”
I fail to see your table comparaing both Pro and con and even saying anything true that relate to both.
“I have said this before ”
Yes , probably , but lies repeated billions of time dont make them truth , do you need a court order and decision to make you see how wrong you are ?
“but it really does bear repeating”
No , as it is 100% pure lies. It need to be studied do , as to show to what lenght and extreme some people are willing to go in order to lie.
“Which license do you consider to better promote the freedom of the software code? ”
Both promote Free software , hence your question is totally irrelevant. But there is a difference between promoting and doing something.
“One that allows any entity to “posess” it,”
No such license exist , thats a tottaly made up right that is not given by any of the two license you discuss. Under copyright , the owner of the copyright is the one to posses it.
“and to make secret and proprietary changes when they redistribute in binary-only form?”
None of the license you discuss grant those rights and privilege.
“Or one that forbids this “owning” of secret changes in code being re-distributed? ”
Its not the license that forbid it , its real Open Source and real Free Software , its there core value and quality. The lie start when BSD’s wich is a protection clause gets called a License and continue when it get called Open Source and Free software , when in fact its shared source and shared software.
They share the source with you and they share software with you , it come with no protection , no right and no guarantee that a derivative will not be created ending all progress on the previous version.
“BSD style licenses”
BSD ‘ ssss protection clause , its not just one protection clause it got changed and modified a couple of time.
“offer much more freedom ”
Again : * If you are already free how can you get more free ? You are Free or You are not , there is no middle ground.
“to the individuals in posession of the code”
You really means , thiefs grant themself special rights that are not given at all in the protection clause.
“while GPL style licenses restrict the freedoms of the (re)distributer to ensure the code”
Closing , taking someone else code for your own self profit , controlling exclusively said code are not freedom , The GPL protect Freedom where the BSD clause dont care for it at all.
“is available to the whole community. ”
whole world , BSD is a fringe community, GNU/linux and the GPl cather to the whole world.
“Is is closer to the individual versus collective freedoms discussions.”
Individual freedom ( everyone single individual as that freedom ) , in this case only some individual have taken the control by stealing someone else contribution and granting themself non existant rights and privilege , because others thief before them did so , and have yet to be prosecuted for it.
Collective freedoms cannot exist if the individual freedom allow the taking of it all and not allowing others the same right.
“Neither one is an absolute greater “right” when discussing freedoms.”
* Closing modification is wrong.
* Closing teaching and learning is wrong.
* Closing resalling of modification is wrong.
* Closing all futur improvment is wrong.
* Stopping all evolution for the sake of greed and control is wrong.
* Closing communication and interroperability is wrong.
“It is a matter of your perspective on the importance of [u]who[/u] retains the priority. ”
Not its a mather of enforcing and defending law , justice and freedom.
The BSD and GPL are not that much disimilar in creation and content. They should have essentially the same result. But then :
Its got taken over by thief , liar , coward and traitor. Who now tottally control the game there , because they created precedent and right that where never given to them in the first place , Open Source and Free Software took third place to Greed and exclusive Control.
No one stood up for BSD when it got taken over , because nobody cares in the BSD camp.
Its the opposite in the GPL , you attack it and try to take it over and you got millions who show up to defend it , because most of them where BSD.
To make things clear the true BSD are not behind the attack on the GPL and Freedom , The thief who took over BSD are and take aim at the GPL and Freedom they dont like to see protected , from inside the BSD camp.
Gadzooks that just makes me sick. Take your zeolosy (is that really a word?) to a soap box and leave the rest of the world to the people who want to work.
People do care in BSD camp. We want software to be adopted everywhere both in closed circles and open. Can’t do that with GPL.
“Gadzooks that just makes me sick. Take your zeolosy (is that really a word?) to a soap box and leave the rest of the world to the people who want to work.
People do care in BSD camp. We want software to be adopted everywhere both in closed circles and open. Can’t do that with GPL.”
I believe the word is “zealotry”. I prefer to use the phrase “ranting incomprehensible lunatic” in reference to the chap who rave endlessly in his/her fractured, mangled English about who knows what.
The GPL is a good license for some software projects, the BSD for others, and non-free licenses suit other projects better. It really is a matter for the liceser to decide.
If I was insane , one of you nice people would have had me commited , and if I was wrong one of you brave people would have sued me. I am neither and you aint really nice or brave at all in reality.
No , The GPL is not a good license its THE ONLY license that as proven track record to work at making Free Software and Open Source a working reality.
BSD get closed and taken over.
Non-free license create interroperability problems , and I dont mean with the GPL. Its also create security problem that only the software vendor can fix.
BSD people dont care , if they really did , Apple and Microsoft would be seriously behind and playing catch up to BSD and GNU/Linux would not exist as there would have been no need for it.
You guys are on a serious fabulation trip that as no base on reality whatsoever.
What can I say you cant even read or understand proper english , its not an exercise in futility , because if I get only one BSD to wake up , this little insults of yours and my opposition to your lies will have been all worth it.
Your profile,
245 voted down
tells everything, Mr. Troll. Good evening, maybe I am not so fluent in English language, that’s okay. Every day is a new day to learn. But what’s about you? Do you learn anything at all or is the “moron attitude” your style of life? Behave like a human being, we don’t speak about religions, we are speaking about software. Get lost, if personal offence is your only way of thinking!
Mt profile is :
624 (81 voted up, 246 voted down)
Accepted Submissions (15)
Including this very article …
But then that dont really look good for your point does it.
“tells everything, Mr. Troll. ”
Not really , what it mean is I got a lot of people who disagree with my posts , usually the BSD people , they dont like to get told reality … BTW I dont think I can troll on a story submited by ME … could be wrong troll used to means something else , now it means someone you dont like because your a moron and cant adress the point he makes.
“maybe I am not so fluent in English language”
I aint the one who is going to discuss your english …
“But what’s about you? ”
What about me ?
“Do you learn anything at all or is the “moron attitude” your style of life? ”
I am very insulting with moron such as yourself.
“we are speaking about software. Get lost,”
Your not on the right site , this is OSNEWS , we talk about operating System here … well we used to.
“if personal offence is your only way of thinking!”
Due to the lenght of my post , that are clearly visible , you either are blind or wishfully thinking its all insult from the start to the finish.
Yes , the truth often does that to criminal too , they get sick upon hearing there sentencing … I rather hope you get well , because unlike BSD who is dying on its own hubris , I dont wish for human using it to follow in suit and be a real zealot and having killed you for my idea.
Your right the GPL dont allow for software developper to close the software , thats why its good and BSD is really bad for Open Source and Free Software.
After 35 year of bulshit that dont work you might get a clue , that those you defend , are the same one not contributing anything back to BSD but extremely profiting from it : Apple and Microsoft are full of BSD code.
We got more driver , hardware and company and proprietary company supporting GNU/Linux then you do with all the BSD ( Even including Apple) togheter.
All this because of your license , nothing else you got is not similar or directly LGPL.
Wikipedia need an edit :
Opponent(1) of the GPL often try to make the association with some sickness ( Cancer , Cold , aids ) , in order to degrade and push an image of a spreading virus that attack the human system and is in fact bad for the health of all humans worldwide , this for the computer system.
The “virus” attack on the GPL , beside being wrong as the GPL dont spread itself on its own , the software developper as to decide to use GPL code in order for it to be subject to its license , is coming from people who’s ethical and community value only serve there own self interest and there own parasitic greed when they feel like it. Those people could be enlightened at how sick and reprehensible there comment is by working for a few week with the patient who’s terrible virus they associate the GPl with , wich they have acquired , its not a joke to laugh about at all.
History as shown ( see Open Source Unix , BSd’s claused software , all Open Source only software ) that Open Source even without the given/mentionned permission to close access to source code and even worst to modify it /change it to work on newer hardware as been closed by and taken over as its the norm and is usual in the corporation and closed source camp in order to give an advantage to a few instead of everyone working on the shoulder’s of others and those of the giants and titan who contributed and gave and made the code before them.
In true and real Open Source , there is no derivative , there is no way to close access to source code its always as the word say’s Open Source , in true and real Free Software there is no derivative either and the right and permission of all are respected and protected , so that you may do as you wish with the code and that this permission stay the same for those who follow you.
The BSD clause style software are not permissive , they ONLY grant you the right to use the code and ask that you do not sue them back if problem arise from its use.(2)
The BSD clause license are definite traitor to the one cause that is behind there creation and existance :
Open Source.
By not defending there value and the only strentgh they have , they are now today a fringe OS that everyone else as incorporated into there code base and that very few ( compared to the code in usage )contribute back to.
BSD is not more permissive as no permission is given , and the most fundamental one reason of its existance is taken away ( Open Source ) by thief , liar and traitors , who dont care about there actions as long as they are the only one to make a short monetary gain from it.
Its not a philosophical events , those are past and current recorded historical events , as they are happening everyday and are events that affect everyone using those OS and license. Wheter they care or know what its all about.
The Maker/User/defender of the GPL are all former Closed Source and Open Source software maker who know first hand that there is no way that they can protect there code using any other license so that it say Free And Open Source for themself and for other in there life time and for the futur generations who wish to use there code.
Closing Code , removing the right to modify it , to see how it work , to learn from it , to teach it to others , remove the right to adapt it to new hardware , removing the right to also make a derivative as they did.
IS NOT FREEDOM
Its disguised dictatorship , where freedom are removed and stolen , where only a few , dictator , thief , liar , traitor and coward have total control over the creation of others and say what can and cannot happen with it from that momment.
Distribution is never the problem , everyone distribute there code , its who control and profit from it that a few thief , coward , liar and traitor like to take over.
BSD’s by all true account is a FOUR deacde old ( 36 years )deception , it is as of today a fringe OS. If it had been true Open Source and true Free Software , they would today be the Major OS , there would have been no need at all for GNU/Linux , why ? Because Microsoft and Apple are based in the majority on BSD code that got closed and license switched a fact that some like to forget.
(1)
* Closed Source camp members Microsoft corporation , its management , its worker.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020381,2089446,00.htm
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=3459
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/
* Eric Steven Raymond ( The former president of the Open Source Initiative )
ESR: “We Don’t Need the GPL Anymore”
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license
Some people write BSD code with the hope that proprietary vendors can use it. It’s not like they’re really stealing that code, they’re following the will of the author…
“Some people”
Thief , liar , traitor and coward who have taken over the BSD and granted themself right that dont exist in the BSD protection clause because they have seen others like them do so with it before them and no one enforced the real BSD Open Source and Free software.
“write BSD code”
If you make and own the code you can license it under every license known to exist.
The stealing happen when someone else made the code under BSD and the thief claim BSD allow them to take it and close it to all others by adding some minor modifications , since there is too many precedent , you realise then and there that BSD is NOT Open Source and Free software , because you get locked out of your own code.
“with the hope that proprietary vendors can use it.”
Proprietary vendor will use all code , they dont limit themself by any value or right and often do so illegally.
“It’s not like they’re really stealing that code”
Its exactly that , in Open Source you leave the source Open so that others may learn it or from it and be allowed to modify it , In free software you let other modify , improve , learn , create and resale it , because thats the right and freedom you yourself received.
“they’re following the will of the author… ”
The BSD author created it to Open Source Unix legally.
Not , because they cared about someone else making money from it by closing eveolution and learning from it to all others but themself.
BSD dont work anyway , no driver , hardware component , system or real sizeable company really support them.
BSD dont care for there software and about the consequence of there action and inactions.
If BSD was otherwise , they would be on everything , driver would be made for it , company similar to Red Hat , Novel , Mandriva , Linspire , Canonical , etc would exist …
BSD is Not Open Source because its source get closed
BSD is not Free Software because one can close it , then you cant modify it , cant learn about it and from it , cant resalle it , cant support it or modify it for your own hardware.
Wikipedia need an edit
Then what are you waiting for? I am sure the wikipedian community are going to welcome such NPOV factual masterpiece with lexical delight. Just don’t forget your references, right?
Hey, I’ll even give you the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Criticism
Press on discussion …
“Then what are you waiting for?”
Nothing …
“I am sure the wikipedian community are going to welcome such NPOV”
Never had a problem with submission , I put in facts , with tons of reference.
“with lexical delight.”
They got editors and spell checker. unlike you they go for content , not aproval of the clueless mass.
” Just don’t forget your references, right? ”
Dont worry , unlike you I dont spit out details out of my ass.
“Hey, I’ll even give you the link:”
Thanks , I dont edit anything , I suggest content and
wait for approval.
1. The GPL is viral
The idea that any software that comes into contact with GPL-licensed software also becomes subject to the GPL seems to have originated with Craig Mundie, a senior vice president of Microsoft, in a speech delivered at the New York University Stern School of Business in May 2001. Since then, David Turner reports, many people have come to believe that even having GPL software on the same computer brings other software under the license. In extreme cases, Turner says, this belief has lead to bans on all GPL software at some companies.
This misunderstanding stems from section 2 of the current GPL, which states only that modified versions of GPL software must also be licensed under the GPL. However, the section clearly states that if a program “can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it” and that being on the same “storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.” As Fontana points out, the definition of a derivative work could be clearer — and should be in the third version of the license — but the general principle is unmistakable.
The GPL is viral, though to a lesser extent that portrayed by microsoft. If I include a file that is under another OSI approved license into a project, the file must be made GPL, thus its viral in that way. And that is what is holding it back from cool features in OpenSolaris. If GPLv3 made an exception that it could bind with other OSI approved licenses without forcing the foreign code to be under the GPL, things would be a lot easier.
Depends on if it is part of the work or not. I personally see that as a good thing. If you make it part of my GPL work then I have the right to your work the same as I gave you the right to mine. If it is not part of the actual work then it is not automagically GPL.
Depends on if it is part of the work or not. I personally see that as a good thing. If you make it part of my GPL work then I have the right to your work the same as I gave you the right to mine. If it is not part of the actual work then it is not automagically GPL.
By that logic, if you take my public domain/MIT/BSD/etc.-licensed library and make it a part of your GPL work, shouldn’t I have the same rights to your work as I gave you to mine?
More important is the fact that the GPL is — by design — incompatible with even a renamed version of itself (apart from the upgrade clause, which is subject only the FSF’s whims). If one wishes to remove the attributions to RMS’s puppet organization, for example, and rename the license the Free Public License (FPL), one will find that FPL code is GPL-incompatible and GPL code is FPL-incompatible to the degree that that not even object code from the two can be linked together. Indeed the GPL is the most monopolistic and viral of all possible licenses. (Thankfully the LGPL doesn’t quite fall prey to this insanity.)
Just means you should move to the GPL if your license isn’t providing you with something the GPL does provide. Or should I say if you want something yet your license doesn;t require that and yet your license provides me something that I do not have to provide back to you.
If you want the same rights as others taking your code then the GPL is the license for you.
That’s just plain incorrect. The GPL is compatible with any licens that is at most restrictive as itself. If your FPL contained the same terms as the GPL, it’d be perfectly GPL compatible.
The GPL is compatible with any licens that is at most restrictive as itself.
Not true. It’s compatible with itself and with other licenses that are less restrictive. Other licenses that that equally restrictive are not GPL-compatible.
If your FPL contained the same terms as the GPL
The terms of the GPL require the license of linked code to be called the “GPL” and attributions be made to the FSF. By changing just those names, you’ve changed the terms.
Maybe RMS won’t take you to court over this breach of contract, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed a breach of contract to link “FPL” and GPL code.
By that logic, the commerical Delphi license is carcinogenic, in that I’ll be made to pay if I copy any of the source of the RTL or VCL into my own apps.
The fact is the vast majority of licenses require some form of renumeration for the product or service they provide. Generally this is money; in the case of the GPL the only requirement is that you release your derived software in such a way that its users can benefit from it as much as you did from the original GPLed work. This means it can be under any GPL-compatible license (not just the GPL itself).
Frankly, that’s not particularly onerous. If you don’t want to do that, go to the copyright holder and ask them if you could pay them a fee to release it under a proprietary license: that’s perfectly okay (assuming they’ve been careful about copyright assignation) and allowed.
I have very little time for the ignorant ingrates who complain about how unfair the GPL is, and demand a BSD world where they can do whatever they want with other people’s hard work and never contribute anything back. Good software is hard work, and the GPL acts to ensure that people don’t see their hard work abused.
Edited 2006-08-30 19:53
I didn’t say the GPL is unfair, I said it is blocking it self from other OSI approved licenses. It is the GPL that is keeping it self walled off. The other OSI approved licensed code has obviously made its source code availible for free use. So the GPL code benefits from the other OSI licensed code. The GPL project would have complete rights to distribute all of the code. So code still remains free, its just that the files that are licensed under the other OSI approved license still live under its own restrictions.
I’m not sure I understand you properly, but you can mix and match GPLd code with code released under other OSI-branded licenses, as long as those other licenses don’t impose restrictions that go beyond the restrictions already imposed by the GPL(v2, v3 will allow specific exceptions) or provide a way to license the code under a GPL-compatible license.
If you look at the average large software package published by the FSF like gcc, you will find that there is a lof of software under different licenses in it, being mixed with GPLd code.
There is a simple class of software that you can’t mix GPLd software with: software under a license that adds restrictions that don’t exist in the GPL. That prevents mixing of GPLd code with proprietary software that has restrictions on use/distribution/modifications.
It also prevents mixing of GPL v2 licensed code with OSI-branded licenses that experiment with novel restrictions, like patent retaliation clauses. That’s not an intended feature, and is being adressed in the GPLv3 drafts to some degree.
If you’d like to see GLV3 and CDDL being compatible, the GPLv3 drafting process would be the place to participate and comment.
From the CDDL FAQ:
Can code licensed under the CDDL be combined with code licensed under other open source licenses?
CDDL is file-based. That means files licensed under the CDDL can be combined with files licensed under other licenses, whether open source or proprietary. However, other licenses may have different restrictions which may prevent such combination; it is your responsibility to read and recognize such restrictions.
From the GPL License:
“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.”
Sure – but that clause does not mean what you may think it means.
It requires that the work as a whole be licensed under the GPL, but that doesn’t mean that all the parts making up the whole work need to be licensed under the GPL.
For example, in the whole work called gcc 4.1.0 you can find files licensed under the GPLv2, LGPLv2.1, BSD variants, GPLv2 with linking exceptions, W3C license, Unicode license, etc.
The issue with combining CDDL licensed code with GPLv2 licensed code is that CDDL licensed code has certain restrictions that don’t exist in the GPL, and the GPLv2 prohibits adding additional restrictions on top of those already in the GPL.
What rights is the CDDL taking away?
it gives you the right to use, distribute, you can even take the code change it and resale it as your own? You can take the code and dual license it, as long as the two licenses are compatible.
There is a mismatch in restrictions in both licenses such that the restrictions in one case in the CDDL are stricter than those under the GPL. You could interpret that as the CDDL not granting as many rights as the GPL, in some cases, I guess, if you prefer to regard it from that angle.
One of the simple examples where CDDL has stricter restrictions than the GPL is in the area of software patents.
By design, CDDL has a patent retaliation mechanism for aggressive use of patents. GPLv2 does not have a patent retaliation mechanism. While it’d be technically possible to have a patent retaliation mechanism that is compatible with GPLv2, the wording in CDDL doesn’t seem to be compatible, since it adds a restriction that does not exist in the GPL:
Upon retaliation, CDDL revokes *all* the rights to the program granted to you by the participants, presumably including the right to use it, i.e. run it. GPLv2, otoh, never takes away your right to run the program.
That’s the impedance mismatch, in the patent retaliation clause, afaict.
Actually the viral properties of GPL can turn into benefits by dual licensing, e.g. MySQL. You can embed MySQL into your application for free, but you must eat the viral license. Or buy the commercial license so your application will stay proprietary.
Most of these comments are referring to the term copyleft [1].
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#WhatIsCopyleft
Yes I consider the BSD license to be more “free” in the sense that it is so free that someone can take it for themselves.
I consider the GPL to be more “free” in the sense that anything that is free will always remain free.
Both are free, one is free to do whatver you wish including making it unfree, the other is free and you can never make it unfree.
They really are two things, period.
You can not enforce freedom to someone, because in your point of view it’s the right path. So if I enforce “freedom” while cutting down some “rights”, it’s no freedom at all. Freedom isn’t a tradeoff. To ensure freedom, you have to change peoples minds, but with the means of freedom – you can not use means of dictatorship.
But if you force them to do so, the will not act whitout any force. Companies “steal” GPL source at any time and they live with it, so the GPL is more some kind of a nemesis for opensource than a fortune.
Free or not free is the question, not some mumbo jumbo of a pseudoreligion. Licences in a free (opensource)world with more than 2-4 lines are crap.
So if I enforce “freedom” while cutting down some “rights”, it’s no freedom at all. Freedom isn’t a tradeoff.
Yet, we have thousands and thousands of pages of restrictions (called laws) even in very “free” societies.
Your simplistic definition of “freedom” is a useless one.
With the BSDL, code that is free always remain free, and you can’t make it unfree. Not different from the GPL.
Anybody can take GPLed code for themselves, and do whatever they want to do with it, the same way they would use BSDLed code. No difference here.
It’s only when one decide to redistribute the code (in binary form) that the licences will differ : the BSDL allow you to keep your code (modifications and new code) secret (but the BSDLed code you used is still out and free), while the GPL forces you to make your own code free and available with the rest of the source.
… everyone’s favorite GPL zealot has weighed in.
Love you too kadymae , seriously liked your previous comment about me , but this one is not bad either :
http://kadymae.livejournal.com/
1) BSD code is not given freely.
2) You dont get to call Shared Source as Open Source and Free Sotware. Unles syour a politically motivated liar.
3) BSD , since you dont know was about Open Sourcing
UNIX , before the thief , liar and traitor took over.
Open source is not about closing code or making closed derivatives.
BSD’s never compared with the GPL , BSD is about stealing UNIX , GNU/Linux and the GPL is about making a Legal , free and Open Source UNIX.
I dont expect someone like you to ever understand.
>GNU/Linux and the GPL is about making a Legal , free >and Open Source UNIX.
Communist dictatorship! Religios bigot, whatever – I am out, sorry for my harsh words, but people like this one are the gravediggers of opensource!
” Communist dictatorship! ”
Do you even know the meaning of the word you use ?
” Religios bigot ”
Religious biggot ? I aint discussing my religion , but software history …
” whatever – I am out, ”
That you certainly where …
“but people like this one are the gravediggers of opensource! ”
Hopefully , Open Source is the reason why we have Apple and Microsoft so strong today. I am all 100% for Free software , because the rest dont work in reality. It gets taken over and closed.
3. You can’t charge for GPL software
This is true in almost all cases. Unless you’re selling something else to go along with it, such as hardware, support, clipart, etc. And in these cases, you’re actually selling these other things and not the software itself.
Nobody (except for a handful of idealists) is going to pay for software that you can otherwise get for $0.
I suppose you’d have to pay for it if it was custom built for you, but then you’re going to pay out the ass for it if it’s anything remotely complex. Some people will say that you can band a bunch of people together and split the cost between them, but I’m not sure if this has ever been done. Maybe it has?
Edited 2006-08-31 01:11
“3. You can’t charge for GPL software
This is true in almost all cases…”
Actually that is false in almost all cases…
“Some people will say that you can band a bunch of people together and split the cost between them, but I’m not sure if this has ever been done. Maybe it has?”
And of course people can join together, one person purchase GPL covered software and then share between everyone and then some. That is one reason the GPL covers distribution is to make sure everyone has the freedom to make a copy for a friend.
Edited 2006-08-31 01:46
I hoped we would debate and discuss before I offered support for what I have said but it seems everyone is asleep so I will go ahead and post my supporting information to my post.
Some excerts from the GPL FAQ:
Q Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
A Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source–therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
Q Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
A Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
“Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. “
If you read that above it states quite clearly that “you can charge any fee for distributing” and that “the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary” and that is speaking specifically about downloading from a site.
It also states specifically about the only exception to what you can charge as being what is specified in regard to the written offer that must accompany a binary only release.
A good link to read – http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
The GPL/FSF use of the term ‘free’ has never been about price at all except in regard to make sure the software remains free (as in freedom). So cost is no factor unless it somehow can be used to restrict the free (as in freedom). Okay here is a excert in case you don’t want to read the whole page I linked to…
“Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (20k characters) (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It’s up to you, and the marketplace, so don’t complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.
The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone to pay–such as a billion dollars–and thus pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source, to ensure the user’s freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.
…..
When we defend users’ freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.”
As stated earlier, you can charge a billion dollars for the binary download and a billion for the source download if you wish. What you cannot do is offer the binary for less than what you offer the source for since that would be restrictive source code. Or put another way you cannot charge more for source than what you charge for the binary.
But the “actual cost” issue only comes into play in one certain circumstance and it did not apply to cipherfunk at all. Actual cost is not a issue unless you are not providing the source at the same relative time you are providing the binary.
If you are offering a download of the binary and of the source then you are accompanying the binary with the source and as such you can charge for the source download up to the amount you charge for the binary.
One misconception down……
Edited 2006-08-31 06:15
Yes my dear, Apple is full of BSD code and has helped vice versa BSD a lot (see SMP for example). Many companies do not return code, but money or ressources (like servers) or they allow some of their developers to work on *BSD full time.
>We got more driver , hardware and company and >proprietary company supporting GNU/Linux then you do >with all the BSD ( Even including Apple) togheter.
Please, I don’t need the hype. Quality, not quantity! If we cut down to drivers that are really useful, there is nothing left. *BSD world works because they like Unix, Linux exists because there is a lot of hate against other systems. Don’t answer, look into all these Linux forums first.
You do not need x filesystems and in the end still the best of the best in Linux is ext2/3 (look at the endless discussion about reiser3/4 for example). We don’t need hacks (your huge pool of drivers for example), that just works (like in Windows), we are in need of high quality software to compete with closed-source world. I am an atheist in every direction, so please don’t try to evangelize me, it’s worthless.
I don’t like MacOS, but it’s a lot better than Linux on “Desktop”, to name the child >quality first<!
Last not least, freedom is freedom, without any tradeoff. Any other thing isn’t freedom, it’s “freedom according to this and that…”. In real freedom you have to live with some disadvantages, but it’s freedom that matters, not “religious software morons”, which are conquering the world with their communist attitude.
“Yes my dear, Apple is full of BSD code and has helped vice versa BSD a lot ”
With help like that who needs ennemy …
“Many companies do not return code”
Contrary to what you falsely think its not the norm in the computer industry , only with BSD’s.
“but money or ressources (like servers) or they allow some of their developers to work on *BSD full time.”
If that where the case , in good proportion and not a very tiny minority , BSD would be the OS to lead.
“Please, I don’t need the hype.”
No Hype.
“Quality, not quantity! ”
You have neither …
“If we cut down to drivers that are really useful, there is nothing left.”
Lets stick with reality and whats availaible , where not going to trow away drivers because they dont fit your special criteria. Most people prefer when there device work , because there is a driver for there OS.
“*BSD world works because they like Unix”
Missed the computer history lessons , BSD IS UNIX …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unix.png
” Linux exists because there is a lot of hate against other systems. ”
Thats the other systems problems , GNU/Linux got created by people who like better , free as in freedom and open source software.
“Don’t answer, look into all these Linux forums first.”
Please , dont spread lies , Linux forum are for discussing GNU/Linux and all of its distribution , its softwares and the possible solution , also most of them serve as help system to fix problems.
“You do not … reiser3/4 for example). ”
You definately did not try GNU/Linux in a long time , you need to tell your script maker to upgrade is old rethorics , they where false then , there definately
outdated now …
“We don’t need hacks (your huge pool of drivers for example) ”
Cant wait to see your drivers , thats right they dont exist …
“that just works (like in Windows) ”
You apparently never used Windows drivers either …
“we are in need of high quality software to compete with closed-source world. ”
GNU/Linux got the high quality software. There apparently just not to your taste.
“I am an atheist in every direction, so please don’t try to evangelize me, it’s worthless. ”
I was talking about software , if you wish to talk religion , you need to go to another forum …
“I don’t like MacOS ”
I do , nice OS.
“but it’s a lot better than Linux on “Desktop”, ”
No … it only run on Apple hardware.
“to name the child >quality first<! ”
You seriously lack current information on the GNU/Linux desktop.
“freedom is freedom”
Yes …
“without any tradeoff.”
Actually freedom is with tradeoff. otherwise it become chaos.
“In real freedom you have to live with some disadvantages ”
No … with some responsability and with some restriction on your actions.
“but it’s freedom that matters ”
Yes …
not “religious software morons”
I dont see why you have a problem with religious software , there software you can instal or remove from GNU/Linux just like all the other software , if your trying to imply GNU/Linux and the GPL are religion or a cult , then you need to go see a judge and explain your case to him , religious crime are punishable by law , just a note the last one who tried it one GNU/Linux got himself a really nice 6 figure fine and got served with extreme difamation and extreme prejudice to the court.
“which are conquering the world with their communist attitude.”
GNU/linux is the best example of free market , where everyone compete on the same level … if it where communist there would be only one version , everyone would be forced to use it and could not modify it or create derivative and certainly not resale there derivative , wait I think I just described Windows and Apple …
Sorry, but I don’t think that if *BSD would have had a GPL-license it would be that different.
Microsoft (which at least had used an *bsd IP-stack at the time of … WfW 3.11?) would have written one from scratch instead of using it. Probably that would mean a bit more development time for Microsoft.
But would anyone have contributed instead of rewrite it completely on his own (for those that didn’t contribute back)? For the time before 2000, I don’t think so.
Hey now! Now my posts are buried under two pages of off topic banter. You’ll do realize the article was about the GPL misunderstanding don’t ya? Not the differences between the different licenses.
Now I am going to have to start over trying to dispel the biggest misunderstanding and misconception about the GPL.
Thats right I said, as long as you are charging $11,000,000,000,000,000 USD for the binary then you certainly can charge that for the source as well.
You just cant sucker someone by giving them the binary for $1 and THEN later saying the source is a billion bucks. That is the reason for the written offer and the requirement of ‘actual cost’ in that situation.
You can charge anything you want to distribute source as long as you are charging the same for the binary and offering both of those at the same time.
Here are the links to my superb argument that you can charge anything you want for distribution.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157346
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157377
Edited 2006-08-31 14:47
You are indeed correct that the GPL is viral. And it is viral by deliberate design. Microsoft grossly exaggerated the viralness, but that is a separate issue.
If you take ten lines of GPL code and stick them into a ten million line code base, then the entire code base release has to be under the GPL. So there is legitimate concern over this, and companies are justified in banning the use of GPL source code and libraries. You can’t have developers copying trivial snippets of code off the web for your non-GPL project.
If you take ten lines of GPL code and stick them into a ten million line code base, then the entire code base release has to be under the GPL.
This myth needs to die. Taking 10 lines of code from one program and putting them in another will virtually never cause your work to become a derivative of the work from where the 10 lines came from. This is because it is nearly impossible for 10 lines of code to meet the level of expression which is required for copyright to attach. Depending on the code, you could conceivably copy hunderds of lines of code and still not run afoul of copyright.
Additionally, the degree of copyright infringment is considered by courts. 10 lines in a 10 million line code base is such a small percentage, there is next to no chance damages would be awarded. And since it is such a small amount of code, it would be trivial to remove it, or rewrite it.
That said, I still don’t recommend copying someone else’s code and if you take the advice of anyone on a message board instead of consulting with a lawyer, you deserve that multi-million dollar judgement against you.
repeat after me – It is okay to charge for the source code up to the amount of the binary as long as you are providing both at the same time. I can charge a billion dollars for the binary and I can charge a billion dollars for the source code also in this case.
Edited 2006-08-31 21:42
Once more – Yes Virginia you can charge for source code. A whole lot for source code if you do it correctly. It is not against the GPL. The GPL does not care about what something costs at all, unless it happens to be restrictive to what they DO care about which is fair access to the source code if you have the binary.
I offer proof in these posts…
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157346
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15671&comment_id=157377