[ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix

[Oliver Schneider]

> Not true. The whole point of the BSD is that a
> business can take your code, make a product, and
> release that product with whatever (sub)license they
> want. This happens all of the time, and is the major
> "boon" of the BSD.
Actually I cannot find this anywhere in the license. But I'll believe you ;)

> This also means that BSD code could (theoretically)
> become extinct in the "free" word; e.g., if all
> versions of the code could be snapped up by 
> proprietary vendors, and all public mirrors
> disappeared. This is one of the reasons people
> choose GPL over BSD -- they want to ensure that the
> source stays open and (additionally) that changes get
> fed back to the community if the binaries are
> distributed.
That's exactly why I carefully choose my license beforehand. Some of my
codes are GPL (currently 2 projects). These are things where the efforts
should not be used "commercially" (usually the GPL keeps away companies in
the Wintel-world) by others.

> Here is the text of the BSD license:
I know it. But which part tells me someone can sublicense it?
You know the problem here is the following:
- No, I have no problem with projects using GPL to use my BSDLed code
- Yes, I have a problem if my BSDLed code is published by them under the
  terms of the GPL. Because this means they can restrict the rights I
  have granted to the licensees. I think this is not possible like this!

If I understand the cited paragraphs of the GPL correctly it means that the
code parts can be used but do not become GPLed. That's my view from reading
it.

> So yes, your BSD source code can be sub-licensed by
> pretty much everybody, and it can also be "converted"
> to GPL (i.e. it's "GPL-compatible').
"GPL-compatible" is okay with me (that's OpenSource ;) ... "GPLed" - i.e.
restricted by GPL - is not.

> I'll take the opportunity to kill two birds with one
> stone on this one.
(-: We Germans kill two flies instead of birds :-P

> Defaulting to saying it's inappropriate means that we
> could implicitly terminate any of these licenses even
> on suspicion (i.e., guilty until proven innocent), and
> that just doesn't make sense.
That's an interesting view.

> Von: Royce Mitchell III
> Sounds to me the most prudent course of action would be a new version of 
> the GPL license which clarifies this particular bit of confusion.
This is being worked on currently (AFAIK). They want to make it much simpler
so non-native speakers can understand it without a PhD from a law school ;)

Cheers,

Oliver

-- 
---------------------------------------------------
May the source be with you, stranger ;)

ICQ: #281645
URL: http://assarbad.net