Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:51:02 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Graham Bentley" <gbentley@uk2.net>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEIKEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20041025084122.007cdb50@mail.uk2.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Graham Bentley > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:41 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: GPL vs BSD Licence > > > > Hi List ! > > Perusing the Internet the other day I came across a short > interview with Linus Torvalds from a while back. He was > asked about the GPL vs BSD Licence. > > As I dont fully understand the development process I was > wondering if anyone could comment on his reply below? > > I (mis?)interpret this as follows :- > > If you use some BSD code in some project that you turn into > proprietry code you just need to include the appropriate > acknowledgement statements - No. Once again, the acknowledgement clause was revoked a long time ago because of bigots like him spouting their mouths. It's ironic that the very idiots that the acknowledgement clause was revoked for still don't understand it's revoked. > but you can exclude > anyone from using that new code / solution. > Yes. Since there's no obligation to publish, that is how this is done. Of course, someone could reverse engineer your code. > With the GPL you are explicitly giving away your right to do this > whilst at the same time leaving a the door open for others if they > want to use your code / solution. > Absolutely wrong. What is ignored is that the GPL contains a loophole - it DOES allow itself to be violated by a very specific person - the code copyright holder. The reason is that the GPL is a license that DOES NOT CHANGE the copyright. In short, if you apply the real live BSD license to your code, you are explicitly transferring your copyright to the Regents of the University of California. The Regents have committed to NOT selling that copyright to some commercial entity. In fact, years ago the Regents actually sold BSD source licenses, Sun and HP were among the licensees, as a way of making money. This was back when CSRG was still viable. Today, there's no commercial viability for the UCB source license, due to the whole issue with the AT&T lawsuit and subsequent BSD Lite release, and also because FreeBSD is really where the action has been at for a long time, not UCB. By contrast the GPL concerns itself with REDISTRIBUTION not copyright. You are free to take your code and release it with a GPL license and your OWN copyright applied. Yes, people can use your GPL-licensed code in their products as long as they make their changes available. But what is frequently forgotten is that YOU are STILL able to license out your code to commercial entities. This is how mySQL makes money. Licensees of the mysql code - and there are more than you think - pay MySQL AB and do NOT make improvements that they make, public under GPL. This financial fact of life is not unknown by most GPL developers. Also note the following in the Linux kernel itself - for example, 2.6.9 in the file COPYING: "Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it." In short, Linus Torvalds owns copyright on the Linux kernel used in Linux. He is legally free to license a copy of the Linux kernel to any commercial entity. Granted, he cannot license out any files of the Linux kernel that he himself didn't write. And of course, an OS is so complex and has so many files, that it would be likely that a purely Linus Torvalds kernel would be unrunnable. (at lest the kernel of today) But in theory he could take his code and license it to some UNIX vendor separately, he is not obligated to license new versions of it under the GPL. Now, you might think "So what, Linus will never do this" But, what if he dies of a heart attack tomorrow? Well, his copyright of Linux is property that will exist for another 70 years. What happens if some company like SCO Group comes along and offers Linus's heirs a million dollars to purchase the Linux kernel copyright? Do you think they wouldn't sell? Sure, the GPL'd version of the kernel is still out there. But, the copyright owner could make hay with the subsequent confusion. These issues are NOT speculative and are NOT unknown by the Free Software Foundation, who is the copyright holder of the GPL license itself. In fact, the FSF advises authors to transfer copyright rights of their work to the FSF to avoid these problems. But, very few have done so. It appears most GPL license proponents who write code they put under the GPL are more than willing to blather on about how great the GPL is, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they are unwilling to back up what they say. The day that Linuc transfers his Linux copyright to the FSF I will start respecting what he has to say about licensing. Until then, what he is saying is pure bullshit. Ted Mittelstaedt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIEIKEPAA.tedm>