Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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No.  Once again, the acknowledgement clause was revoked a long time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that the very idiots that the acknowledgement clause was revoked for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>