Miscellaneous > The Lounge
stealing from GPL?
Calum:
i don't mean they may merge, but consider:
the BSD licence allows people to take (and modify if they wish) BSD code and shove it in with their own code. They can then use the code in any way they like, yes? so they can distribute binaries only, they can charge for them and so on. The idea is that if BSD can be got for free anyway, that'll check the balance and it won't run away with itself.
The GPL however states that the source code comes with the binaries, if binaries are provided at all. with GPL, everybody has a right to see the exact source code for whatever anybody is running. And the modified code must assume the licencing conditions of the original code (the GPL) So people cannot redistribute any modified code without including the actual source code. They can sell it, they can provide binaries, but they must allow the source code to be freely distributed as well, if there's any GPL stuff in there.
This would seem like an easier model to negotiate when it comes to copyright and intellectual property.
SO: let's take this example...
I get all the BSD code i can find, from all four versions of BSD, and i make my own shitkickin' muthafuckin' version of BSD that i love with it's own superflash installer program and tons of cool stuff, which i can do because i got all the source code for free. THEN i release it onto the market and call it 'FabBSD' or 'KickassBSD' or something, and i sell it for $99 or whatever, providing only precompiled binaries for whatever system i want it to run on. THIS is legal as far as i can see.
SO: let's rewind a bit, i still have my shitkickin' muthafuckin' version of BSD, but instead of only distributing binaries and charging whopping amounts of bread for other people's work (which seems to be the acceptable way of doing it...) I decide "NO! I have a conscience" so i decide to release my new BSD under the GPL.
I still sell it, and i still make a mint, except that i distribute my code, and people make tons of great chenges and fixes really fast which make it kick even more shit and fuck even more muthas than before! Also, any variant of this 'AceBSD' code will also be GPL, but it will a lot of it be able to run natively on other versions of BSD as well!
anybody could legally do this tomorrow as far as i can see, and within months the BSD and GPL communities would have effectively been brought leagues further towards each other, and there would be a GPL version of BSD out too...
Have i missed something? because that seems legally sound to me.
voidmain:
I see your question now. You are asking, since BSD doesn't have the restrictions of GPL, why can't one take the BSD code, claim it for their own and turn it into GPL code. Is that what you are asking?
Well, I am not as familiar with the BSD license but I think you have prompted me to read into it farther. I do believe, however, that this can not be done. I don't believe the BSD license is *that* lax. In fact I think you must at least provide the copyright/credits in your code if you include some or all of the BSD code (which is why you find the BSD copyright in some of the M$ executables). I'll try and do some more digging on this tonight (read the license, and do some other research) and I'll let you know what I find out. I would also suggest you do the same. Let me know your conclusions...
pkd_lives:
Okay, this is a very interesting subject. I just read the BSSD license at opensource.org
Question - Is that all it is, a copyright statement and three clauses (one since recinded)?
On this basis, Calum, I don't think you can GPL release the BSD code. The reason is Copyright law. If you got a letter from the copyright owners (berekley) stating you could release this under a GPL then the code would forever enter into GPL domain. It appears to be an issue of Intellectual property. You have a right to use the code as long as you apply copyright statements to released product.
The real crux appears to be the GPL license. It forbids claiming ownership of the code. You can assign credit statements, but NOT copyright statements, or the code would illegally enter the proprietary software arena, which is what the GPL is designed to prevent.
No-one owns the GPL'd software, and you cannot have a ownership mark in the license, which is what a copyright statement is (whether or not it's freely available for use).
I think this is right. Maybe you should write to them and ask them if you can. They would in effect have to give up the requirements for copyright notice, they could insist on a statement of credit though, as that does not seem to cross the GPL. Write a statement of credit in to the GPL, and Bob's your uncle.
Anyone any other thoughts?
Calum:
why can't i just release the new OS under the GPL while allowing the original writers to retain the copyright? the GPL allows copyright to be retained anyway does it not? here's the BSD licence that is included with my copy (FreeBSD 4.5):
quote:# $FreeBSD: src/COPYRIGHT,v 1.4 1999/09/05 21:33:47 obrien Exp $
# @(#)COPYRIGHT 8.2 (Berkeley) 3/21/94
All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite
Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of California.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. 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.
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.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the American
National Standards Committee X3, on Information Processing Systems have
given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation.
In the following statement, the phrase ``this text'' refers to portions
of the system documentation.
Portions of this text are reprinted and reproduced in electronic form in
the second BSD Networking Software Release, from IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, IEEE
Standard Portable Operating System Interface for Computer Environments
(POSIX), copyright C 1988 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. In the event of any discrepancy between these versions
and the original IEEE Standard, the original IEEE Standard is the referee
document.
In the following statement, the phrase ``This material'' refers to portions
of the system documentation.
This material is reproduced with permission from American National
Standards Committee X3, on Information Processing Systems. Computer and
Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA), 311 First St., NW,
Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001-2178. The developmental work of
Programming Language C was completed by the X3J11 Technical Committee.
The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are
those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official
policies, either expressed or implied, of the Regents of the University
of California.
NOTE: The copyright of UC Berkeley's Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD")
source has been updated. The copyright addendum may be found at
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change and is
included below.
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source
code files require that further distributions of products containing all or
portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials
that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its
contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 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."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
--- End quote ---
If Microsoft can release parts of the BSD system under their own EULA, so long as they recognise copyright, then why can't i do the same with the GPL?
[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
pkd_lives:
So having re-read the GNU GPL I see I may have miss thought this. Okay the issue is whether you can include someone else'e Copyright software.
You could use the code under a GPL license, but you would have to include the BSD license for that BSD code. It would be like sending out a GPLd Linux dist. with proprietary software, you can but licenses have to be included, and license requirements met (star office is a good example, I think). You cannot change a license without the authors express consent.
I think my confusion was I like the GPL because it forces the developers of code released under GPL to remain GPL, BSD does nothing of the sort, you can use BSD much as you want as long as copyright is mentioned. The BSD code, though, will not change, it will remain under the BSD license, you do not have the right to change another license, without the authors express permission.
M$ could not stop you from taking the BSD out of their software, because they do not own the copyright, in fact it is a matter for further debate maybe, but maybe M$ are actually required to insert a copy of the BSD license for the BSD code?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version