Theo de Raadt Responds to Linux Licensing Issues

bsdphx writes "While Theo may have a reputation of being "difficult" in some circles, this response to the recent relicensing controversy is thoughtful and well penned. Through this whole process I've learned some new things about both GPL and BSD licensing, and especially about combining the two."

Compiz/Beryl

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the same thing happened with the Compiz/Beryl farce.

The Beryl developers took the BSD code and GPL'd it without the original authors permission. The exact same reasons of 'evil companies' will steal BSD code was given, but the 'evil' Beryl developers were the only ones taking but not giving back.

People should learn that even though this is open source they still have to respect other peoples rights.

Just doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

He says that you cannotmodify a file to remove a license without permission, but he fails to acknowledge that a dual licensed file gives you that permission with the other license. If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file. If the BSD license gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the GPL license from that file. So long as I comply with the remaining license, I have permission to distribute the result, as the remaining license is what gives me legal permission from the copyright holder.

GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. Ironic.

No, not ironic. Just dishonest. You say all along that taking without giving back is the ultimate freedom, you criticise the GPL for not allowing more of this, you allow it for proprietary software, but just as soon as GPL software does something you consider to be similar (even though the source is still out there, it's unusable to you), then you have a problem? You can't get the code back from proprietary software either, but you don't bitch and moan when proprietary software does it, in fact you criticise the GPL for not allowing it. This just looks like you have a problem with the GPL, hold it to a higher standard than everybody else, including yourself.

BSD license

[josephdrivein]

If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back.

That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do
not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you
would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file:

"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."

It's not true: he can modify and distribute under BSD the original code that was released under BSD, he can't distribute as BSD whatever was added and licensed under GPL. So none is stealing his work, they are just licensing their intellectual work as they feel it's better.

Exactly as Theo did when he decided to use BSD license: he choose BSD for a number of reasons, one of these was apparently that he thought that this kind of behavior is acceptable, as BSD license allows it.

So, why doesn't he change openBSD's license to something that he actually likes?

RMS and TdR have something in common...

Re:GPL is about giving back to community

[Zatacka]

So what he's basically saying is that he'd like modifications to the code to remain in the open. They should create a license that makes sure that always happens! Oh wait...

Re:BSD license

[mrvan]

There's a legal side to this and a 'ethical or friendly' side.

Legally, it is quite obvious that you are *allowed* to relicense the code. AFAIK, the purpose of the BSD is to *allow* people to use and distribute the code in (almost) any way they want.

The issue here, as stated specifically by TdR, is an one of ethics. He sees "the GPL people" as friends and fellow free software fighters, and would like them to give code back if they improve on it. GPL licensed code is not useful for "BSD people" since the licenses are not compatible. The very nature of the BSD license is that they cannot demand the contribution to be given back, but they can ask nicely and hope that friends are friends indeed.

It's a bit like a good street artist contributing something to society to listen to and enjoy, with a friendly request to donate something if they like it. And in software terms, this donation should consist of improved code (although I'm sure nobody would mind a monetary contribution :-))

Re:GPL is about giving back to community

[Anonymous Coward]

At least you can see the code, and the community is free to use it within the GPL limitations.

That's just it. Due to the GPL's viral nature, the BSD community cannot just "use it within the GPL limitations". Those "GPL limitations" would reportedly turn around and force the entire OpenBSD source base to be licensed under the GPL.

Now, that isn't the sort of thing that the BSD community wants. We like BSD-style licenses because they bring us the greatest degree of freedom, while still offering us some degree of protection. We avoid the GPL because of its viral nature. Just as somebody who developed GPL software probably wouldn't want to be forced into releasing it under the terms of the BSD license, a developer who releases their code under the BSD license doesn't want it GPL'ed.

I think Theo is wrong to suggest that the GPL'er didn't give anything back. What they gave back was a dangerous, viral piece of code. Not "viral" in the sense of malicious software, but "viral" in the nature of such a tiny fragment of code threatening the licensing freedom of millions of lines of other code.

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[stony3k]

While it does appear that he could be wrong legally, he is quite right from an ethical perspective. There is a lot of great work being done by the BSD folks and it would be quite impolite to tell them, "Hey thanks for your code, but you won't get anything back from us". I think the right thing to do would be to continue to use the dual license for the work in question.

If you're very worried about your improvements being close-sourced, perhaps it would be better to write your driver from scratch, rather than cutting off one part of the community. A tiff between the BSD and GPL camps is the last thing we need.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[pbf]

Your comment misses the point. What Theo claims (and he is right about it) is that by removing the BSD licence you don't contribute back to the BSD project that created the code you took. In other words you are doing just what you claim companies would be doing, because as soon as you put that under the GPL, the BSD project cannot use it anymore.

What he said is that this type of action is equal to not playing the community game as far as the BSD project is concerned. Your code maybe available for Linux, but it is not available anymore for OpenBSD or other non-GPL project. In essence you are removing freedom on code you did not create. This is what is ironic.

Can't we

[charleylc]

all just get along? Seriously, I find any impropriety or the suggestion of in regards to licensing issues to be counter productive to the linux cause. I also find any infighting less than professional. Linux has long moved from the hobbyist arena to prime time. Although this "news" is hardly front page material, it does tend to reflect negatively on a product that already has it's work cut out it for general acceptance as a legitimate product. Hopefully it won't become fodder for power struggles and holy wars...oops - too late.

Re:BSD license

[muuh-gnu]

>It's a bit like a good street artist contributing something to society to listen to and
>enjoy, with a friendly request to donate something if they like it.

No, its actually like a mad street artist demanding only his "friends" to pay (and getting mad if they dont), and letting all other pedestrians listen for free and bootleg and distribute his music.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[DaleGlass]

*scratches head*

Your comment misses the point. What Theo claims (and he is right about it) is that by removing the BSD licence you don't contribute back to the BSD project that created the code you took. In other words you are doing just what you claim companies would be doing, because as soon as you put that under the GPL, the BSD project cannot use it anymore.

Right, but the BSD in fact gives you the permission to do this

What he said is that this type of action is equal to not playing the community game as far as the BSD project is concerned. Your code maybe available for Linux, but it is not available anymore for OpenBSD or other non-GPL project. In essence you are removing freedom on code you did not create. This is what is ironic.

Weirdest thing I've heard lately. This pretty much agrees with the GPL concept of "freedom" and seems to imply that BSD should be GPL licensed.

*head explodes*

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[BitZtream]

Except generally both of those licenses say they can not be removed. You can choose to use one of them, but in most cases the original work, which is part of your modification, must still remain available under both licenses. By removing one, you are in fact, breaking the rules.

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[schon]

There is a lot of great work being done by the BSD folks and it would be quite impolite to tell them, "Hey thanks for your code, but you won't get anything back from us"

Considering that's the entire goddamned point of the BSD license, how on earth could such an attitude be considered unethical?

Long story short, Theo is a hypocrite.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[devangm]

They made their rights clear when they licensed it under the BSD license. If you want others to share code, make it mandatory and use the GPL. If you just want credit for what you've written, you're still getting it with dual-licensed code. Oh, wait, you want to be able to use the changes as well under the original license? I'm sorry. Don't license it under the BSD license and expect someone else more comfortable with the GPL to make large changes and not use the GPL. The GPL is just more honest and upfront, and it's the GPL's fault?

different is as different does

[Gary W. Longsine]

The difference is that commercial entities which modify BSD code, compile it, and distribute binary-only distributions are not pretending to own the share and share alike happy friendly community open source high ground. The Linux community does try to own this high ground, really to the point where BSD gets no credit for having the less restrictive (more "open" and more "free") license. What Theo is saying is that if the Linux community wants to maintain its hold on this high ground, they should play fair with code they get from BSD, and share back with that project. Good in the world would be reduced if this turned into a war. Imagine BSD projects getting relicensed as a lever against Linux, say some sort of clause which prohibits dual licensing, and requires non-commercial entities to share code back to BSD. It could get uglier than that, but it probably won't, since the BSD camp has a long history of being the most open and free of free open source licenses, it's unlikely they would start using their license as a weapon at this point.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[naapo]

It is not possible to add a new license to a BSD licensed file without permission of the original copyright holders.

Of course it is. You just cannot remove the BSD license from the original code you did not wrote. GPL and BSD are compatible in this sense; you can for example add a function to a BSD licensed file and put a note there that the said function is licensed under GPL. Also, you can add GPL-licensed files into BSD-licensed project (GPL specifically allows it, and BSD license does not forbid it). After that you cannot distribute the combined work without agreeing to both the BSD and GPL licenses; of course only to the extent in which you use the GPL-licensed parts and BSD-licensed parts. If I understood correctly, that seems to be the problem here. The BSD people, quite understandably, do not like this licensing quagmire, because it would prevent the inclusion of the combined work into a BSD tree (the newly written files and functions under GPL could not be placed into a *BSD project).

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[DaleGlass]

For example, I could invite you around my house and say "If you're hungry, grab something from the fridge". While it would be 'legal' for you to empty the entire contents of my fridge in to the back of your car and drive off with all my food, it's not exactly ethical.

Exactly right! Except "grab something from the fridge" is very fuzzy, while the GPL and BSD are very specific about what exactly they mean, and have been debated to death. By now everybody understands exactly what the BSD means.

Now the lesson is this: If what you feel and what say do not match, then you're going to have problems, and they'll only be your fault.
If you say "Feel free to borrow my lawnmower whenever you need", and then your friend takes it right when you needed it, and that annoys you, whose fault is that? Your.
If you say "Feel free to take my source and do whatever you want with it", and then they do, and the conditions under which they license it annoys you, whose fault is that? Your.

The problem here is exactly this: Some people licensing software under the BSD do it trying to appear more altruistic than they actually are (not saying this is all of them though). In this case Theo seems to be demonstrating that what he thinks should happen with his code, and the terms he actually licensed it under differ.

If there's something you don't want to be done with your software, don't release it into the public domain or under the BSD.
If you don't actually want to have your project forked or built upon, don't release it under the GPL.
If you don't want to have friends suddenly show up at 3AM, then don't tell them they can do that just because you wanted to look polite.
If you offer to drive somebody somewhere, and that they actually accepted your invitation annoys you, then you shouldn't have done that.

IMO, trying to appear more polite and altruistic than you actually are is the cause of much annoyance in the world.

Re:However...

[brass1]

The point is, the code from inception was organized by the developer as 'either GPL or BSD'. Anyone contributing code to that should recognize that. If someone choses to follow GPL, devs shouldn't get offended, they knew what they were getting into. If you don't want to play by the rules of a segment of a project, go away. Claiming that people cannot strip the BSD license on a redistribution is like saying because one of the licenses is GPL, you must always ship the source code.

But that's just the problem isn't it? It seems to me that the original authors intended to allow everyone who receives their work the option to license the work under either the BSD or the GPL license. If you strip one of the licenses out of the file aren't you specifically denying everyone the right to choose with license they want to use?

The intent of the original authors was for everyone to have the choice of license, not just the guy who submits the kernel patch.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[roman_mir]

Well, if you want to provide your copyrighted code to others and want them to acknowledge you and follow the rules that you set for distribution of this code, then you'll have to get into those little details.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[51mon]

The point of the GPL is it allows GPL code to be mixed in.

Once that happens the code can't be distributed under the BSD license anymore.

Hypocrisy doesn't enter into it, it is likely that dual licensed code will end up under the GPL only when used in the Linux kernel. This doesn't necessarily prevent authors contributing their changes back to BSD, but it may require them to remove any GPL only code that is in the mix.

Since the code clearly can't be used under the BSD license if GPL code is subsequently included, and the original licensing made clear the authors intended this use of the code.

Theo seems to be objecting to the authors choice of a dual license, he is welcome to his opinion, but it is down to the authors to select the license or licenses they are happy with.

There may be a technical legal issue concerning changing the attached license text, but if that isn't allowed, then the law is an ass in this situation, since the original BSD license text would be meaningless.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[Anonymous Coward]

So nothing is morally wrong with sharing modified BSD code with other GPL coders, but not with the BSD coders who made it possible? It's one thing not to share, but if you're are going to share modified BSD code, why can't you share back to the source? There's nothing legally wrong with slapping a GPL on modified BSD code, but doing so, you consciously deny any direct use of your modifications by the BSD originators.

Free to your community and no where else, eh? To hell with where it came from and whether or not the originators, who happen to have a different yet no less noble agenda, can use it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[Kjella]

BSD people are happy to let closed source corporations take the code, give no source and make money off it, but not as a starting base for an open-source community (GPL meets OSI definition I think) that doesn't want closed source derivates? It's just another case of BSD developers going "Waaaaaaaaaa, you use our code like we licensed it" or "Waaaaaaaaaa, you're making a GPL project that'll be more successful than ours". It's not "being impolite" when you're doing exactly what the license asks of you, and which repeatedly BSD users say "I'm just glad it's being used" whenever it's commented that some closed source company is using it. Well, it's being used and you're not getting any back. Wasn't that what you wanted? Then maybe you picked the wrong license. Why should GPL developers let themselves be held to a higher standard than anyone else using the code?

Quite frankly, the "moral obligation" you're appealing to is the same that it's been repeatedly proven that closed source companies don't have, which is the leading cause of wanting to license it under the GPL in the first place. So when BSD developers ask "don't you think sharing back would be the right thing to do" the GPL developers answer "absolutely, that's why I license it under the GPL". And every time BSD developers seems to be stumped by this answer, go figure. <Bad analogy time>It's like the GPL is the bouncer throwing out alcoholics and junkies that loiter around from the store, and the BSD is the customer saying "I won't shop anywhere that screens customers". Well, sorry it's not personal but as long as you insist on dragging that company in with you, you're not welcome either. Hey, maybe not so terrible analogy after all. BSD is like a public street, GPL is like a public store. And the BSD zealot is the guy standing outside on a soap box saying it's not "public enough".

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about PERSPECTIVE, dude. I don't know if you're being facetious, but things are relative. Just like in OO programming, if two objects are effectively identical in behavior and interface, they are interchangeable.

From a BSD coder standpoint, the GPL IS no different from a proprietary license. Well, there is one difference. It's a white box instead of a black box. I can go in and see how it works and come up with my own algorithms. I could do it with a the black box as well, but it takes longer. But the reason why its no different is because as a BSD coder, I am no more able to use the GPL code DIRECTLY in my work as I am with a company that has locked it up.

And that is PERFECTLY FINE. GPL or proprietary, someone has found a use for BSD code and it moves on. Directly or indirectly, EVERYONE benefits. But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[m50d]

BSD code can be modified but the BSD license cannot be removed from the modified file either.

Unless you have the permission of the copyright holder. Such as them giving you the software under another license which allows you to modify it, like, say, the GPL.

Re:BSD license

[m50d]

It's a bit like a good street artist contributing something to society to listen to and enjoy, with a friendly request to donate something if they like it.

Theo would do well to listen to the "friendly" part. Street artists with his attitude would be looking at a pretty empty hat.

bullshit

[m2943]

It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document.

It is not "illegal" if the license permits it. The license says:

Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
Software Foundation.

Now, if someone makes the tiniest change to the code and only licenses their change under the GPLv2, then the entirety of the software can only be distributed under the GPLv2, which means that the portions of the BSD license simply are not applicable anymore.

The usual way of doing this would be not to alter the existing copyright notice, but to add a second copyright comment that says something like: "Portions of this code are copyrighted by John Smith and are licensed under the GPLv2. Please note that as a consequence, the entirety of this file may only be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2."

The effect is, however, the same: the file can only be distributed under the GPLv2, and the result is perhaps more confusing to users, which is why deleting the now inapplicable part of the original license is probably better.

The fundamental issue that this kind of dual-licensed BSD/GPLv2 code can be turned into GPLv2 code is unavoidable, however: that's the purpose and intent of dual licensing. Note that the reverse is also possible: someone can make additions to the code and only license those under the BSD license, killing the GPLv2 portion of the license.

(I won't even comment on Theo's use of terms like "illegal" and "breaking the law" other than to say that it's inflammatory bullshit.)

not ironic at all

[m2943]

GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great
problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and
lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock
us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving
us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get
it back. Ironic.

I don't see anything "ironic" about it at all. The ability to take BSD code and use it without being forced to give it back is what BSD licenses are all about. If GPL'ed projects find it preferable to fork, lock out, and not give back, that's no worse than if commercial companies do it--the reasons of a GPL project to do this are just as valid as those of the many commercial companies who do this.

Apparently, Theo wants to have his cake and eat it, too: on the one hand, he considers "locking out" a bad thing, on the other hand, he refuses to adopt licenses that prevent others from locking people out. He is merely hoping that "locking out" doesn't happen. Well, looks like he is wrong.

As for Theo's implication that open source developers have special obligations to be nice to each other and cooperate, all I can say is that he should think about starting with that at home. The endless criticisms and allegations of virality by members of the BSD community of the GPL license, as well as his own strong language and flames hardly motivate GPL developers to go beyond the minimally legally necessary requirements when dealing with BSD or BSD code. If Theo wants GPL developers to take into account his wishes, rather than just BSD's legal requirements, he needs to become a whole lot nicer first (or, better yet, just step down and let someone else take over).

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[stony3k]

The point is that the original code could have continued to be dual-licensed and then it would have helped both BSD and GPL camps. By removing the BSD license (which they may not have the rights to do - IANAL but maybe that can only be done by the original copyright holder), they have now cut off part of the community. That is not ethical, IMHO.

I'm generally a strong believer in the GPL, but in this case I find myself sympathizing with Theo. Also, even though the BSD license allows anyone to close the source, in general, the BSD developers like to have changes given back - they just don't like forcing people to give back improvements. It's like an honor system, and in this case they feel changing the license to GPL was dishonorable, especially since the Linux devs should have known better.

Re:Shakespeare on license stripping

[7-Vodka]

First of all, licenses aren't contracts.

Secondly, Alan cox wrote:

All a bit irrelevant anyway as Ath5K code (not the .h file) say:

* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.

Which means there are two licenses to chose from, who gives a rat's ass if you void one since you can use the other.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[Dun Malg]

So nothing is morally wrong with sharing modified BSD code with other GPL coders, but not with the BSD coders who made it possible?

If BSD-license-using coders find it "immoral" for people to use their code under other, more restrictive license schemes, then why are they using the BSD license? Hasn't Theo de Brat long boasted that the BSD license is superior for exactly this reason, the true freedom to do what you like with the code? Releasing under the BSD license and complaining about BSD code getting "GPL'd" is the height of absurdity. The BSD coders don't get to use the code when it's expanded and the resulting app is sold in the traditional business, and they're fine with that. It's like what they say about freedom of speech: the price is that you can't silence people you disagree with.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[notthe9]

Nothing denies use of the code by the BSD originators. They can use the code just as much as anyone else. It's not that the other 6 billion people get preferential treatment, it's just that the BSD originators also have to comply by the GPL if they want to distribute the modified code.

Is it fair to make them play by your rules? It sort of sucks, I guess. It's not all that unfair or anything: they chose to let you do so.

Re:GPL is about giving back to community

[jadavis]

So what he's basically saying is that he'd like modifications to the code to remain in the open.

These are the points that I took away from his statements:

(1) That people were breaking the law, and encouraging others to break the law.
(2) He feels that building code on top of BSD code, and then licensing the improvements with GPL, is unethical. He didn't say it should be forbidden.

The first point is much more serious. If we do have high-up linux developers breaking the law and encouraging others to do so, there is a problem.

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[Murple the Purple]

> How is it clearly the result of someone relicensing BSD code as GPL?
> Wouldn't that be meaningless since only the copyright holder can license the work?

The BSD license grants permission to other developers to distribute modified versions under other licenses as long as the BSD license is kept intact. So, no the copyright holder of BSD licensed code doesn't have to relicense the code because they have granted this right to others. (This is not the case for GPL'd code)

Just because the BSD license permits someone to make modifications and distribute the modified version under the GPL, does not mean that the BSD license is not in effect. Any action permitted by the GPL is permitted by the current BSD license. That is why the FSF says the licenses are compatible.

The act of dual licensing original code under BSD+GPL is pointless because the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD and any act permitted by the GPL is also permitted by the BSD. On the other hand, if you derive BSD code and want to release the code under GPL, you must release under a dual license, but both licenses are in full force.

The author of the modification apparently pointlessly stated that his *changes* to the BSD code may be distributed under wither the BSD or GPL licenses. He cannot change the license of the BSD code he inherited. All code covered by the current BSD license can be distributed under the GPL.

Somebody read this statement, misunderstood the details, and started removing BSD licenses from files that originally came from OpenBSD.

Enter Theo.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[Jimithing DMB]

Theo is bringing up two independent points in his message. The first point is that choosing to use the code under the GPL license does not mean you are allowed to remove the notice that it may be used under the BSD license. The second point is that while you are allowed to license modifications under a different license you are encouraged to license them under the BSD license. The points are somewhat intertwined which is why he makes them together.

As for the first point, his argument is simply that the BSD license requires that it not be removed from the source file. It is a modified BSD so it no longer requires acknowledgement when advertising a product using the code which is the specific part that made it incompatible with the GPL. It does still require that the notice remain with the code. You will note if you look at a project such as Apple's xnu that the BSD copyright notice and license remain intact on BSD source files with the APSL added to it. Likewise, the Mach copyright notice and license remain intact on files that came from Mach. Similarly, I moved the region code from X11 into wxWidgets and you can clearly see in the source code (src/generic/regiong.cpp) that the X11 license remains intact. Did I have to do this? For X11 no because X11 only requires that the copyright stay in the source file and the license be part of the program's supporting documentation. Had it been BSD licensed I would have been forced to keep the BSD license in the source code. Regardless, I did it anyway as a gesture of good faith.

This brings us to the second point, that of giving back to the commons you took from. As you point out, the BSD license does not require it! Yet somehow, the BSD codebase continues to grow with contributions not only from individuals but also from companies. The reason for this is that people feel obligated to give back useful portions of their work to the commons despite not being legally obligated to do so. Theo's observation here is simply that many companies are contributing back to BSD but that individuals wanting to use the code for GPL projects are taking a hard-line stance that because BSD does not require it, they will not do it. He's also pointing out that it's gotten worse than that because it has become so prevalent to insert BSD code into a GPL program and license the modifications under only the GPL that several individuals now feel they can remove the BSD license and copyright notices as well.

In other words, modifying the BSD code and licensing the modifications under a different license is allowed by the license and therefore technically legal but considered wrong. Removing the BSD license is against the license and therefore illegal.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[Kjella]

Well, if that was true the results would be an earthquake. The requirement to distribute under the BSD would then be an "extra requirement" as per the GPL, which means no code under any other license is compatible with the GPL. So would "v2 or later" be to "v2 only" code, so they could not mix either. It's an interesting legal theory but it goes against all established practise so far.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[zotz]

"But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?"

Is this an honest question? Isn't it obvious that the GPL folks will not do that because they cannot just share it with the BSD coders who made it possible. To share it with the BSD coders, they would also have to share it with the lock up coders. Something they are unwilling to do and hence their choice of the GPL and not the BSD in the first place. Do you see some third way I am not getting right now?

all the best,

drew

Take away lesson from all this

[coaxial]

Don't dual license code. Especially when you have to deal with not one, but two, bullheaded people.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[NoMaster]

I read Theo's rant a couple of times ...

Your prejudice betrays you - if that was a rant, then it was the kindest, gentlest one in the whole history of public discussion.

Now, Theo has a (somewhat) well-deserved reputation for abrasiveness - he certainly doesn't suffer (people who he thinks prove themselves to be) fools gladly - but the more I read of the bsd-* lists, the more I kinda like the guy. He doesn't bite without reason, though you may be left wondering what that reason is...

Go read those posts again. He's not ranting, he's not raving, he's not flaming - he's stating fairly clearly why he thinks it's disappointing, in a sadly ironic way, that some people who ostensibly support a licence which forces freedom are taking advantage of a different one which merely hopes for it.

From a BSD licence POV, it's like "free software" is a community space with free open access and a right to use however you want - and the GPL is where somebody has come along and built a fence around part of it. Theo's saying that yeah, sure, it's allowed - but it's just sad that a part chooses to take advantage of the generosity and open nature of the whole...

Double-standard

[ProteusQ]

Theo's position apparently is: if you take my code, make your changes, and never tell me what you did -- never even show me the changes -- that's your freedom. Enjoy it. The BSD license rocks. BUT, if you take my code, make your changes, and I find out what they are and can't reuse them myself, then you've abused the freedom I've given you.

Problem: that's an ethical argument, an argument about how one should or should not play the game of open source software. The BSD license is a work of law -- how the game may or may not be played, regardless on intention. IANAL, but the law probably supports the return of the BSD license text. Beyond that, the license did its job -- the code was indeed given away.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[colinrichardday]

A BSD license allows for more people to use the source over what time frame? In the short term, yes, the BSD license allows for more freedom. But what about the long term? Code is not a static thing, it is part of a stream of constantly evolving code. What is crucial is to protect the freedom of the entire stream, and not just a small piece of it.

Nomenclature failure

[Pliny]

I think the confusion here is coming from using one term to mean two things. I think most everyone here is considering dual-licensed code to be one complete work which is available under a choice of licenses.

Theo however seems to be talking about a composite work consisting of code available under two different licenses, requiring the whole to be distributed under both simultaneously.

As to which case we're talking about here? Who the hell has time to rtfa and figure that out..

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[mspohr]

GPL'ing BSD code is a slap in the face that says "We will never, ever, give back. Period."

I think that this is a bit overwrought. When BSD code is modified and placed under GPL, it cannot go back to BSD but that is really in keeping with the BSD ethic which states that you can do just about anything with the code, including putting it under a closed, proprietary license (like Apple and many other companies have done). If BSD people don't like this, they should use a different license. At least with the GPL, they have access to the published code. If BSD people consider this a slap in the face, what do they consider it when a company takes their code and puts it under a closed proprietary license?

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[rumith]

But BSD is a license and it cannot be legally removed from a licensed file.

No it can, since the file is dual-licensed. Take Qt, for instance: it is available under two licenses, GPL and QPL, which directly contradict each other. And you are only capable of accepting one of them, and that's exactly what you have to do. Once I accepted the GPL, there wasn't a single mention of QPL in the source code anywhere. How difficult can that be?!