A Case Study In GPLv2 / GPLv3 Compatibility 239
An anonymous reader writes "A project called OpenChange is working to develop an open source client library for Microsoft Exchange. They are heavily dependent on Samba code for the underlying protocol support and have been forced to move to GPLv3 once Samba moved. This has gotten in the way of legally adding support to other software such as KDE, which is unwilling or unable to go GPLv3." It sounds like all the developers involved expect the GPLv2/GPLv3 issues to be resolved in time.
Update: 10/01 12:26 GMT by KD : Dan Shearer, of OpenChange and the Samba Team, wrote in to correct the anonymous submitter's mistaken implication that OpenChange moved reluctantly to GPLv3. Read on for his actual position.
Update: 10/01 12:26 GMT by KD : Dan Shearer, of OpenChange and the Samba Team, wrote in to correct the anonymous submitter's mistaken implication that OpenChange moved reluctantly to GPLv3. Read on for his actual position.
I'm Dan Shearer of both the OpenChange project and the Samba Team, and I wrote the message on bacula-devel linked by anonymous' original post. I would like to correct the unfortunate impression given by anonymous that OpenChange has been reluctantly forced to change licenses because Samba has moved to the GPLv3. In fact, OpenChange see that the GPLv3 is entirely appropriate for Samba, and OpenChange plans to use the GPLv3 even when not necessarily required to do so by upstream licenses. The move to GPLv3 was one of two license changes we plan to announce on openchange.org in the next few days.
The specific issue highlighted in the post is not a general GPLv3/v2 incompatibility. Code which is licensed under the GPLv2 but no later version is incompatible with the GPLv3. There are a few significant examples of GPLv2-only code, including KDE as mentioned and also the Linux kernel, which cannot be linked to GPLv3 code. That is a matter of policy for those few projects. We would of course be delighted to be able to use their code as appropriate if they change their policy at some point, but we have no complaint if they do not choose to do so. The GPL offers many choices and this is one of them.
Most GPLv2 code includes the words "or any later version", which is a statement of trust by the licensor in the people who create those later versions. The GPLv3 was created as a community effort, a very large and representative community effort, and in that sense many people think that this trust has been maintained. Including the Samba Team and the OpenChange project. If you are unsure about this, go to archive.org and search for "Eben Moglen 2007", which will give you a choice of media and plain text for the summary talk in Edinburgh a day or two before the GPLv3 was released. We respect that there are different opinions on licensing including some who do not like the GPLv3, however it is indisputable that the GPLv3 is very much a community production rather than a statement from the FSF. That fact of community evolution supports the idea that the trust implied by "or any later version" has been maintained.
It might also be helpful to reflect on the history of OpenChange. OpenChange is an independent work from a team led by Julien Kerihuel built on the research and tools produced by the Samba Team. OpenChange has been the direct beneficiary of a lot of effort contributed by the Samba Team over the last four years. We strongly support Samba's use of the GPLv3 as being an appropriate response to the current legal environment.
The thread the anonymous poster linked to was in response to Kern Sibbald of the excellent Bacula project. Kern has his particular views, and we respect those views, but they are by no means general. (Readers may also like to read the entire thread on bacula-devel.) When we look at the numbers at Palamida we find many thousands of projects that OpenChange can link against, besides all the others with compatible licenses such as the Apache license. We don't feel very lonely :-)
Non-issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Samba --OpenChange -- KDE
KDE operates on top of OpenChange, which operates on top of KDE. From the write up, OpenChange is "heavily dependent on Samba code for the underlying protocol support". So they mix in outside (Samba) code which changed license, and thus are forced to change the license. Fair enough - they want the free lunch, they have to use the license specified by the guy who wrote the code.
What doesn't make any sense is that OpenChange cannot support KDE now. Of course they can. As long as they don't share any code, they can be licensed independently.
Re:Why are developers wasting their time with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Where did you get that datum? I think if you read any decent analysis, you'll find that the vast majority of code in active FOSS projects is written by programmers paid to do so. This means that project leaders, i.e. the ones who invest the most in the project have every incentive to think long and carefully about the future of their project, because it affects their professional future, too.
You only see that one solution because you haven't done your analysis properly.
There are very good reasons why more FOSS developers choose the GPL than all the other licenses combined [dwheeler.com]. Perhaps you should investigate those reasons before discarding it as a nuisance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every individual on our core team except one does paid work on the project. We also do unpaid work as well. Most of our contributions also come from people create the work in the course of either employment or consulting contracts. I know that two of our core members (out of six) are employed in positions where development of LedgerSMB is not a duty.
So at least in my experience with one project, I would say that between 80 and 90 perce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I am concerned about the future of the GPL v2, I intent to start releasing more code under the X.org license which, by my reading, is incompatible with the GPL v3 but not the GPL v2. I say this because I now understand how
Re: (Score:2)
Why not share that little secret of your?
Check out a recent bit from my journal (Score:3, Interesting)
However, there are two basic premises:
1) In today's market, one cannot compete with Free. Hence closed source versions are only viable if they are competing with your competitors' closed source products primarily. Note that every proprietary PostgreSQL spinoff has died if its primary goal was to compete with the Free version. The only 2 that have survived are primarily targetting specific markets held by Oracle and DB2. (Arguably, even SunOS wasn;t really aimed at co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats not always legally possible though. For a hypothetical example, lets say you wrote some special music managing software that did plenty of neat and innovative tricks, and released it bsd.
Now Apple comes along and re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Interesting)
It is precisely for this reason that a GUI platform should not be GPLed; it should be LGPLed (which GTK/GNOME is, in the relevant portions). And also precisely for this reason that the Linux kernel, while GPL, is effectively LGPL for code in userspace according to their interpretation. Otherwise, the kernel would have this exact same problem - you wouldn't be able to run Samba on it.
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I have no clue if KDE includes that line or not.
Re:Non-issue (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Informative)
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
Re: (Score:2)
One simple reason: to keep incompatibility issues to a minimum. I consider license incompatibility a far bigger issue than RMS releasing GPLv4 with BSD text pasted in. Just look at BSD, its all BSDL and it seems to be doing quite fine, so if that is the *worse case*, I really don't see it as a big problem with it. I of course prefer the additional protection the GPL gives, but I really wouldn't want to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I have no clue if KDE includes that line or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "or any future version" is optional for the developers. I have removed it from all of my software, as I do not want to license my code under rules which have not yet been written.
from the GPL:
(emphasis mine)
In other words, if RMS decides to make the GPL7 with a copy of the Microsoft Vista EULA (or even the BSDL) -- Not only could you renounce it as 'not GPL' as envisioned in the license, but you could conceivably sue him for breach of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The GPLv3, for the first time, departs from the "share and share alike" nature of the source code and attempts to dictate what hardware it should be allowed to run on and what hardware makers are allowed to do with the code they don't own"
Fixed it for you, but I uess that GPLv2 did the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The effect of this is that if a project is GPLv3 licensed (like Samba), you can't use it to do X just because GPLv2 says you can. What this means for the project is that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
KDE seems to have the (or a later version) in 3 header files I looked up. They still have the option to use a gplv2 version of samba.
And even then if you think your software is that important you can still contact the author of the gplv2 file you want to link/include in your gplv3 code and ask for special permission to include it in your project.
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Informative)
393 4848 40829
grep "version 2"
217 2878 22629
994 10962 104446
grep "version 2"
0 0 0
** License version 2.0 as published by the Free Software Foundation
** and appearing in the file LICENSE.GPL included in the packaging of
** this file. Please review the following information to ensure GNU
** General Public Licensing requirements will be met:
** http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource/ [trolltech.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost right. In legal English, "or" means exclusive or. So, when it says "or any future version" it means you get to pick a single version. Thus, if GPLv2 allows X an
Re: (Score:2)
I've always seen it as a "You trade some freedom you have for some freedom you wouldn't." system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Or any future version" clause means the code can be forked and "the later version" license assigned. Existing code is never automatically license-upgraded ( I know it is not a word)
I do not think anybody will be interested in forking big projects unless they have the backing of a large group/any company.
That said, I think it is a non issue in this case as long as they do not intend to change Samba or KDE code in anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I use FreeBSD. (Score:2, Insightful)
When it comes to the open source software that I develop and release, I always use the MIT license. That's just the safest thing for me to do, and the safest thing for those who want to use, modify and redistribute the softw
What does that have to do with USE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you totally miss the part of the GPL that says it doesn't cover use? You can't run afoul of the GPL merely by using software.
As the GPL [gnu.org] puts it:
> When it comes to the open source software that I develop and release, I always use the MIT license.
And I thank you for that. I don't care what your motives, I appreciate those who share code.
But please don't spread FUD about the GPL. Is that too much to ask?
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, most free software libraries are LGPL or freer.
True, but irrelevant... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, you know it's not at all the type of use I was talking about, and like you point out, even the FSF makes sure that it's not an actual problem in practice by using the LGPL for libraries.
It's only natural for people to want to protect what's important to them. But why must we begrudge each other for protecting those rights most important to them? The GPL protects the end users, the BSD license protects the people using the code i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Did you totally miss the part of the GPL that prevents tivoization? The FSF doesn't actually claim that anymore, do they? GPLv3's anti-tivoization clauses are all about use.
You're right, GPLv2 doesn't cover use. GPLv3 does. And that's why so many free software programmers have deep problems with v3.
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD. (Score:5, Informative)
GPL is designed to give Freedom to the 3rd person in the chain of development. BSD only gives freedom to the second person in the chain, but he can restrict the 3rd person's freedom if they so choose. The 1st person is of course the original developer and he can do whatever he pleases regardless of license.
Hence, with BSD your code is only free to the first two persons and even though the 2nd person can be generous and release his changes in BSD to the 3rd... The 3rd is still free to restrict the freedoms of the fourth and so on.
GPLv3 makes sure you can't take away freedom at any point in the chain of development of anyone else that comes after you.
Not really (Score:2)
There are plenty of reasons to contribute back to BSD/MIT licensed projects, both moral and economic.
Note also that the GPL doesn't guarantee anyone any sort of freedom either. If I set up an enhanced Samba service (an SAAS model), I don't have to provide my
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the GPL is all seemingly all about how the FSF does not trust programmers, and wants to control them. As a programmer I see no reason to trust the FSF in return.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really don't want to tell the 2nd and 3rd person what to do.
The problem is by not telling the 2nd person what to do you are not even giving the 3rd person a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely a freedom loving "3rd person" would get the code from either the "1st person" or a freedom loving "2nd person" instead?
This is why I find the FSF a bit patronising - trying to enforce freedoms on those that don't want them just seems a little too much to me.
I would prefer that the ongoing freedom aspects were handled by education
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always considered the BSD a libertarian license, in that it depends on individual goodness and doesn't try to impose any restrictions. The GPL on the other hand is more of a socialistic license in that it tries to impose the "greater good of the society" condition on downstream contributors. Which license you prefer very much depends on which philosophy you prefer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the huge difference that socialism as a political system is compulsory, as a license it's voluntary. If you ask what's wrong with socialism, the usual answer is that you're paying for everyone else. You don't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mixing reality and semantics is counter productive.
where... (Score:2)
So, tell us, where can we find the BSD-licensed equivalents of OpenChange, Samba, and Qt?
I just want [...]
Well, and I just want a flying car and a toilet seat made out of gold. It ain't gonna happen, baby. Licenses are complicated, and there are so many of them, because the real world is complicated.
And if you release the wrong software under the BSD license, you could end up scre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Without a condition that says not to remove the warranty, you would be setting yourself up for legal disaster. I wish it weren't the case, but that's the reality we live in.
One could also have a licence saying you can do what you like (e.g., WTFPL as the other commenter pointed out).
That is essentially what the BSD, MIT and similar licenses do. On
WTFPL (Score:2)
In some countries you can't. In France you don't have the right to release to "public domain".
That's why there's the WTFPL [wikipedia.org]. Incidentally, written by a French.
That's stupid but you can't decide that your work is public domain,
That's not stupid, that's logical (ok, sometime something that is logical may seem stupid). Public domain is not a license, but means an expiration of copyright so you don't need a license anymore.
Also publishing with no license means default copyright protection, which means no copy allowed at all. That's also the way GPL works : If you disagree with its terms, or that some clause of the license is ruled abusive, default copyright protection
Wrong! (Score:2)
If some clause of the license is ruled abusive, that doesn't necessarily mean that the license is null and void (triggering default copyright protection). A court has the option of ruling that the remaining clauses of the license are still in force. This "all or nothing" theory of the GPL is bunk.
GPL X Confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Unwilling to move to GPLv3? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dlugar
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, the GPLv3 is actually much more compatible with other Open Source licenses than the GPLv2 was. I honestly don't know of anything I would consider a downside to the GPLv3. I think it's all around a better license than the GPLv2.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any it's compatible with that the GPLv2 isn't, that v3 doesn't have a special exception for? That would be news to me.
I think the biggest downside to the GPLv3 is for those who simply want to protect the four freedoms [gnu.org], and don't feel like a general-purpose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any it's compatible with that the GPLv2 isn't, that v3 doesn't have a special exception for? That would be news to me.
The ASL for one. And, depending whom from the BSD field you talk with, and depending on the mood and day of the month, the BSDL/MIT/ISC one. Actually, that also depends on whom you speak with, but the GPLv3 explicitly allows for the addition of the legal notices of the above, while the GPLv2 didn't.
(...)don't feel like a general-purpose software license is the right place for combating anything else that they disagree with (e.g. software patents, DRM, etc).
The GPLv2 already had anti-patent provision, so it's not something particular to the GPLv3. DRM protection follows the same thinking as the patent protection in the GPLv2.
(...)I'm much more on the BSD-camp side of letting people do whatever the hell they want with the code that I write.(...)
That's great, and you have plenty of
Re:Unwilling to move to GPLv3? (Score:5, Interesting)
My requirements for a software license center around Stallman's original Four Freedoms [gnu.org]. Any software I write I want to have those four freedoms protected, both for what I distribute as well as derivative works, but have no other restrictions, either for developers or users.
The GPLv3, I feel, unnecessarily limits Freedom 0, as well as containing additional clauses that do more than protect the four freedoms. The BSD license doesn't preserve these freedoms for derivative works, so it's not my ideal license either. The patent clauses of GPLv2 simply say, "any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all", which adequately protects the four freedoms, but doesn't make any further restrictions. It's not what I would call an "anti-patent" provision in the same sense as the GPLv3.
Regarding DRM: it is impossible, in my opinion, for DRM to infringe upon the Four Freedoms in a software sense. Software-based DRM cannot prevent users from exercising any of their Four Freedoms, because since they have access to the source code, they can simply remove the DRM portions of the software. For DRM to work at all with open-source software, the DRM must be entirely hardware-based, and, in every case, that exact software will run on modified or alternate hardware. Thus, I believe anti-DRM provisions are out of scope for a software license, because it attempts to dictate what sort of hardware you are allowed to distribute with your software.
What it really comes down to for me is the four freedoms: anything the license does that is above and beyond those four freedoms is something I don't want. Any of the four freedoms it fails to protect is a deficiency. And that's why I've chosen the GPLv2 for my software.
Dlugar
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unwilling to move to GPLv3? (Score:5, Interesting)
I could construct a piece of hardware that will only run an unmodified RHEL3 image, but never actually distribute that image myself. By building and selling that piece of hardware, have I somehow removed any freedoms of all the people running RHEL3? Not at all. They still have access to the source code, they can modify it and distribute their modifications, they can run the code for whatever purposes they want, etc. The only restriction is to the hardware, not the software. Furthermore, there may be very legitimate reasons why somebody might want to ship a piece of crippled hardware that can only run a single image. Even the FSF has recognized that in their DRM exceptions in the GPLv3.
I could agree that some people might interpret Tivoization as an infringement of the first freedom, but a statement so strong as "clearly infringes" I have to disagree with.
Dlugar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe anti-DRM provisions are out of scope for a software license, because it attempts to dictate what sort of hardware you are allowed to distribute with your software.
I can really understand your point of view. It seems ludicrous to dictate what hardware can be distributed with your software at first, but I see it this way: If the hardware affects the behavior of your software, it conceptually may as well be a part of the software.
If the hardware has the ability to alter the fundamental behavior of the software, I think it's fair and logical for the software license to protect its self from the abuse of that ability.
Re: (Score:2)
(I already said some of this in another response.)
Tivoization is a modification to hardware that makes the hardware incapable of running certain code. But it doesn't really have anything to do with the software at all.
I could construct a piece
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, there may be very legitimate reasons why somebody might want to ship a piece of crippled hardware that can only run a single image.
That's true. I guess I automatically assumed abuses would be more prevalent than legitimate reasons, but that isn't necessarily true. You're right. But even now while I'm pondering that new view of the situation I can't help but think that a lot of those legitimate reasons could be short sighted. Like, say your device has security holes in its software image but the device vendor has gone belly up for some reason or another and thus can't fix it for you? Sure, they may have restricted the device to a
Re: (Score:2)
Whose freedom are we talking about ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't
Re:Unwilling to move to GPLv3? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone were to take my code, and extend it with GPLv3-only code, then the derivative works would have more restrictions than Stallman's four freedoms, which is something I don't want to have happen. I would be unable to take their changes back, for example, and use them at a company who was worried about the patent retaliation [gnu.org] clauses, or other restrictions that aren't present in v2.
Dlugar
No, it is not (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL v3 requires that the corresponding source is distributed as a single work, under the GPL v3, which means that all dependencies part of that work (defined in section 1) must be GPL v3 compatible.
Now, the real killer is Section 7, Paragraph 2, which states t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, when HURD 1.0 is released, we will also have to revise the FreeBSD mascot to add a pair of ice skates...
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, I don;t think that merely dynamically linking to a work creates a derivative. I know that is against the FSF's position (and the SFLC doesn't seem to take a strong stance for this except t
Downsides to the GPL v3 (Score:2)
2) The GPL v3 may run into copyright misuse defenses, which could render the restrictions of the license unenforceable and thus allow license violations with impunity. (For a good example of a copyright misuse case,
OpenChange is more than a client (Score:5, Informative)
OpenChange is basically the Samba of Exchange. It aims to provide both a library to be used in clients (as mentioned), and also provide a drop in replacement for Microsoft Exchange server.
Personally, I'm a bit weary of the project. Although it would be nice to have an open source server thats natively compatible with Outlook, and provides an easy transition off of Microsoft products, I'd much rather see a real Open standard take hold rather than turning MAPI into a pseudo standard like Samba has done to CIFS and is doing with Active Directory. Perhaps this is the best that can be done considering how entrenched Microsoft Exchange/Outlook has become in many companies.
Re: (Score:2)
That way people can wean themselves off the proprietary protocols gradually, while moving to a standard one.
Re: (Score:2)
People have tried time and time again to make a new 'standard' take over the market, and it very, very rarely works. It has to be superior in every way, or too many people will simply stick with the old tried and true version. Even then, it has to gain a good following before mainstream will even learn of its existance.
The best way to get your new standard off the ground is as the other responder said: Make a server that does both, but better. You'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a set up.... (Score:2)
And when they go to exploit it, the open source community will stand together and tell MS not to mess with family.
It'll make Time Magizine cover, even better than Bill Gates did when he yelled piracy as Time cover storied it as the great software flap.
Re: (Score:2)
Response from OpenChange and Samba (Score:5, Informative)
The specific issue highlighted in the post is not a general GPLv3/v2 incompatibility. Code which is licensed under the GPLv2 but no later version is incompatible with the GPLv3. There are a few significant examples of GPLv2-only code, including KDE as mentioned and also the Linux kernel, which cannot be linked to GPLv3 code. That is a matter of policy for those few projects. We would of course be delighted to be able to use their code as appropriate if they change their policy at some point, but we have no complaint if they do not choose to do so. The GPL offers many choices and this is one of them.
Most GPLv2 code includes the words "or any later version", which is a statement of trust by the licensor in the people who create those later versions. The GPLv3 was created as a community effort, a very large and representative community effort, and in that sense many people think that this trust has been maintained. Including the Samba Team and the OpenChange project. If you are unsure about this, go to archive.org and search for "Eben Moglen 2007", which will give you a choice of media and plain text for the summary talk in Edinburgh a day or two before the GPLv3 was released. We understand there are different opinions on licensing including some who do not like the GPLv3, however it is indisputable that the GPLv3 is very much a community production rather than a statement from the FSF. That fact of community evolution supports the idea that the trust implied by "or any later version" has been maintained.
It might also be helpful to reflect on the history of OpenChange. OpenChange is an independent work from a team led by Julien Kerihuel built on the research and tools produced by the Samba Team. OpenChange has been the direct beneficiary of a lot of effort contributed by the Samba Team over the last four years. We strongly support Samba's use of the GPLv3 as being an appropriate response to the current legal environment.
The thread the anonymous poster linked to was in response to Kern Sibbald of the excellent Bacula project. Kern has his particular views, and we respect those views, but they are by no means general. (Readers may also like to read the entire thread on bacula-devel.) When we look at the numbers at Palamida (http://gpl3.palamida.com:8080/index.jsp) we find many thousands of projects that OpenChange can link against, besides all the others with compatible licenses such as the Apache license. We don't feel very lonely
Re:Linus is right (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus himself does not think GPLv3 is a good thing. So why do people keep adopting it.
People are adopting gpl3 for some of the same reasons they adopted gpl2, which is to ensure that users are free to modify their software to suit their needs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heck, I don;t think anyone understands the license. The large, nasty surprise is that Paragraph 2 of section 7 pretty much makes the license incompatible with every other license which doesn't have a clause authorizing sublicensing under the exact terms of the GPL v3. It *might* even be the case that GPL v3 + linking exceptions might be incompatible with generic GPL v3...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure: it ensures that people can't claim patents on the software while at the same time shipping it or profiting from it. That's very important to ensure that the software remain free and open.
I mean, we had the Microsoft/Novell deal and Microsoft's patent threats. How much more clearly do people like you need to have it spelled out for you??
Re:Linus is right (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm amazed there are people out there thinking this kind of behaviour is fair game. Just because somebody makes their source available, doesn't mean they want you to pass off their work as your own.
It really is very simple:
BSD says "Do what you want. I don't care."
GPLv2 says "You got the source, so should your customers."
GPLv3 says "Stop jumping through loopholes! You got the source, so should your customers."
Commercial licenses say "You want the source?!?! Go f*%$ yourself."
Personally I would never BSD license any of my code. There are too many people in the world that will happily rip it off.
Re:Stallman is right (Score:2)
I thought Qt was... (Score:2)
Qt is dual-licensed under either GPL or some proprietary license which you have to pay for. The idea is, if you want to develop a proprietary app, you pay them. Unfortunately, that also means that if you want a GPLv3 app, you have to wait for a GPLv3 version of Qt stuff. (That is, unless you're willing to distribute GPLv3 KDE yourself, assuming, of course, that they kept the "or later" clause.)
Re: (Score:2)
Since forever? Thats the reason why there is a GPL and a LGPL after all. Now if a judge would strike it down in court is a different issue, but its certainly the way the FSF interprets it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say I write a program that uses just ANSI and POSIX functions. Maybe something that converts a CSV file of addresses into a XML file using nothing but the C standard library. Let's pretend that glibc was GPL just for the sake of argument... now, I could link to glibc, ulibc, dietlibc, whatever libc MS, Apple, SGI, Sun, whoever uses... My program doesn't have to be GPL to link to glibc in that case because I'm using
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since RMS rewrite the standards of derivation (Score:2)
When you dynamically link to a library, the linking process loads both the original file and the linked library into the same protected memory space, but in different portions of that space (i.e. although they share the same protected memory segment, the address spaces are still different). This would not be sufficiently different than if you included two scholarly papers in an anthology, one of which cited the other frequently. Even if certain page numbers, paragraphs, or even sentences were speci
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, the GPL v2 states that no further requirements can be placed on use or distribution of the software (legal notices of additional permissions are excluded from this requirement based on any reasonable reading of the license).
The GPL adds further restrictions relating to DRM, Tivoization, redistribution of the corresponding source as a single work, and so forth.