[ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix

[Quandary]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:19:38PM +0200, Oliver 
Schneider wrote:
> 
> > 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 ;)

Google for:
"incorporate BSD code" proprietary OR "closed source"

And skim.

> > 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.

Then you must understand -- when companies USE it
commercially, they are sublicensing your code under
their own EULA. They fulfill their obligation to you
(i.e., put in the notices), and then have free reign
to relicense the code as they see fit, so long as
they continue to fulfill your requirements.

> > Here is the text of the BSD license:
> I know it. But which part tells me someone can
> sublicense it?

Which part of the following statements says I can
plug in a toaster?

* You may use this electrical socket if you conform to
  all of the following rules.
* You agree not to draw more than 20A of current.
* You agree to use proper external grounding on all
  equipment that is plugged in.

The BSD license is exactly the same; very open-ended.
I could turn around and make a night-light with a 
pass-trough plug in that stated:

* You may use this electrical socket if you conform to
  all of the following rules.
* You agree not draw more than 2A
* You agree never to turn the light on
* You agree to turn over your first-born child to
  Evil NiteLite inc.

And it wouldn't be breaing the rules of the first
statement at all.

> 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!

Well, that's how BSD works everywhere. That's how
companys can sub-license it into their own code, and
that's how the GPL works with it, too.

An excerpt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing>

Traditionally, Linux associated software is licensed
under the GPL, whilst BSD derivatives often use the
BSD license. Code licensed under the BSD license can
be relicensed under the GPL (the BSD license is said
to be "GPL-compatible") without securing the consent
of all original authors; but code under the GPL cannot
be relicensed under the BSD license without securing
the consent of all original authors, as the BSD
license does not necessarily require the source code
to be again freely available.

> 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.

See GPL section 2.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.*

(emphasis mine)

The whole thing. Including your BSD code. ALL of it
has to be licensed as GPL to be distributed.

> > 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

Actually, that's a good idea ;)

> > 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 ;)

Which will be really hard, since the GPL is one of
the clearest mid-sized licenses I've ever read.
It crams a lot of complexity into very easy-to-
understand, clear, specific terms. The "appropriate"
ambiguity is a very unfortunate oversight :/.

-- Travis


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com