From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jul 3 11:22:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mail.dobox.com (mail.dobox.com [208.187.122.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 245B137B408 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:22:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@dobox.com) Received: (qmail 559 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2001 18:24:36 -0000 Received: from star.dobox.com (10.0.0.14) by spinoff.dobox.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2001 18:24:36 -0000 From: Wes Peters Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:23:56 GMT Message-ID: <20010703.12235600@star.dobox.com> Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? To: j mckitrick Cc: Wes Peters , Rahul Siddharthan , Giorgos Keramidas , =?US-ASCII?Q?Dirk?= Myers , freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20010703172216.F39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702180222.A2667@hades.hell.gr> <20010702161055.A18543@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010702172448.I4896@lpt.ens.fr> <3B41F0E4.B55E6937@softweyr.com> <20010703172216.F39318@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> X-Mailer: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.2;Linux) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG j mckitrick wrote: > | Yes, the copyright holder by definition holds the right to specify h= ow > | copies can be made an used. That's what "copy" "right" means. > | > | A complication for open source projects: if you have accepted=20 contributions > | of code (bug fixes, new features, etc) from others, and have not=20 specified > | that all contributions become your property, you may not be able to = issue > | the code under a new license without getting the permission of all o= f=20 the > | contributors. This is why the FSF asks for copyright assignment for= =20 the GNU > | tools; it allows them to control (prevent) the issuance of the code = under > | other licenses. It's a great idea if you can get your contributors = to=20 do > | it. > Tell me if I have this right: > BSD-licensed code may be used for anything, but requires the permissio= n=20 of > the copyright owner to change the licensing terms. No. The BSD license allows distribution under any terms, including more= restrictive license, as long as the terms in the BSD license (give=20 credit, retain copyright message) are adhered too. For instance, Microsoft is=20 allowed to include BIND in Windows 2000. > GPL-licensed code is subject to GPL terms as long as the copyright own= er > keeps it under that license. They may change this at any time. The copyright holder can re-issue the code under another license, becaus= e he/she/they hold the "right" to "copy." He/she/they cannot "take back" the code already distributed under the GPL (or BSD license). > Does this mean the existing code does or does NOT continue to be under= =20 the > terms of the original license before it was changed? You can only change the license terms if all parties agree. You seem to= be completely and utterly misunderstanding the entire conversation here.= If I develop a program called "foo" and release it under the GPL, that version of "foo" is available under the GPL forever. I can't take it=20 back because the act of releasing it under the GPL constituted a contract=20 between myself and anyone who obtained it. Under the GPL, others who downloaded= =20 it may share it with anyone they wish, under the terms of the GPL. I want to separately sell my "foo" program to Microsoft under a differen= t license, I can do so. Say, for instance, I allow them to make=20 binary-only distributions. These are two separate contracts, they are separate=20 issues under the law. Now, say Rahul sends me some patches that fix a problem in the GPL=20 version of "foo". Do I have the right to incorporate those patches into the=20 version I sell to Microsoft? Not without Rahul's permission; he has a=20 "reasonable expectation" that his patches are convered under the same GPL license as= the code he worked on. If I insist that all contributors to "foo" assig= n copyright for their contributions to me, then I do have the right to sel= l (or give) those changes to Microsoft. If I issue "foo" under the BSD license, this issue is a moot point,=20 because Rahul has a resaonable expectation his patches will be placed under the = BSD license, which would allow me, Microsoft, or anyone else to adopt them=20 and use them in a binary-only distribution. Does this help? -- Wes (please forgive any formatting bogons, I'm trying out a new mailer.) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message