1. Introduction
This document makes a case for using a BSD style license for software and data; specifically it recommends using a BSD style license in place of the GPL. It can also be read as a BSD versus GPL Open Source License introduction and summary.
2. Very Brief Open Source History
Long before the term “Open Source” was used, software was developed by loose associations of programmers and freely exchanged. Starting in the early 1950's, organizations such as SHARE and DECUS developed much of the software that computer hardware companies bundled with their hardware offerings. At that time computer companies were in the hardware business; anything that reduced software cost and made more programs available made the hardware companies more competitive.
This model changed in the 1960's. In 1965 ADR developed the first licensed software product independent of a hardware company. ADR was competing against a free IBM package originally developed by IBM customers. ADR patented their software in 1968. To stop sharing of their program, they provided it under an equipment lease in which payment was spread over the lifetime of the product. ADR thus retained ownership and could control resale and reuse.
In 1969 the US Department of Justice charged IBM with destroying businesses by bundling free software with IBM hardware. As a result of this suit, IBM unbundled its software; that is, software became independent products separate from hardware.
In 1968 Informatics introduced the first commercial killer-app and rapidly established the concept of the software product, the software company, and very high rates of return. Informatics developed the perpetual license which is now standard throughout the computer industry, wherein ownership is never transferred to the customer.
>>54112882
You can read the rest here:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
>app
>>54112882
>In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change. In other words, the BSD license does not become a legal time-bomb at any point in the development process.
lolno.jpg
BSD is literally cancer! How about we get rid of capitalism and all commerce, then there woild be no nee for GPL to protect us from corperate BS.
>>54113486
Lol commie shows his true colors.
>>54112882
Why should i allow someone to take my work, make it proprietary, and sell it?
>>54113518
People can make money off GPL licensed code too, although it's harder, and they can sell binaries. Why is this any different?
>>54113559
They have to offer the source code + instructions how to compile it for free, even if they modificated your source code
>>54113586
Yeah, but they are still making money off your work, so what's the difference? Do you just hate proprietary software? If so you should leave 4chan because it's proprietary. Go to 8 chan. It's open source and full of freetard spergs.
>>54112882
>>54112892
>Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source Project
BSDfags are the ultimate cucks. Not only do they work for free so other people can live of their hard work, they also sincerely believe it to be superior.
>>54113614
>4chan is proprietary
It isn't though.
4chan is a web service. It doesn't run on my computer, it runs on remote computers that aren't mine. I only interact with these, but I do so over a protocol that is open.
>inb4 javascript
JavaScript is a gray area, but you can also disable it. The source isn't exactly hidden from me.
>>54112882
Look what happened to WINE when it was BSD'd. Can you blame the project switching from it?
>>54113639
what happened to it? it's still piece of crap and it always will be
>>54113620
GPL is exactly the same in that regard.
>>54113634
I mean the stuff on 4chan servers. That's proprietary.
>>54113639
Not familiar with that. Can you post a link explaining?
>>54113507
Nah, just someone who isn't batshit insane.
NLRBE > Communism.
Scientific Communism maybe, but certainly not "Communism" as it occurred, as that was simply a variation of the market system.
>ITT: Assblasted GPL fags defending their bloated, positive-liberty ridden and shitty license.
>>54113614
Not him but nobody is going to be making any large profit from selling GPL software only, without providing support for it.
On the BSD side, look at WINE when it was under it. Forked by a commercial company, keeping most of its source code and profits for itself. WINE switched to GPL because of that.
Think of how much better the project could have been if that fork hadn't existed.
>>54113657
>GPL is exactly the same in that regard.
Except it isn't. With GPL you ensure that any derivative code also has to be GPL.
>>54113657
>I mean the stuff on 4chan servers. That's proprietary.
It is irrelevant. Software freedom only applies to distributed code, I can run my own (proprietary) shit at home just for myself and it doesn't matter. As long as hiroshima nagasaki doesn't require me to run proprietary code on my own system, 4chan is just a service and can't be considered proprietary/free in terms of the four freedoms.
>>54113693
The project probably will not have been better.
Imagine freetard being employed by Adobe, how to fuck are you going to explain
and argue with everyone there that they need
to release PS under open source license,
what for? So the GIMP can copy everything off of them?
They invested gazillion resources in the program.
BSD is more compatible with all of this, because:
1) Author of the code is not being butthurt about someone else (being it corporation) taking the code and making it proprietary.
2) It gives true freedom to everyone, to use the program, to modify the code,
improve it, and make money off of it once you choose to do so.
>>54113665
Oh so you're even more retarded. You're a Venus Project retard.
>>54113693
>Not him but nobody is going to be making any large profit from selling GPL software only, without providing support for it.
Companies do that all the time. Look at Oracle and RedHat.
>On the BSD side, look at WINE when it was under it. Forked by a commercial company, keeping most of its source code and profits for itself. WINE switched to GPL because of that.
They lost nothing from the fork, and usually companies contribute back to BSD projects. That's how FreeBSD and OpenBSD work.
>Think of how much better the project could have been if that fork hadn't existed.
When someone forks your code, you lose nothing. They just copy and paste it. If they were GPL they would have never been forked in the first place.
Where is this fork of Wine? I have never heard of it. Is it better than Wine?
>>54113738
>They lost nothing from the fork, and usually companies contribute back to BSD projects. That's how FreeBSD and OpenBSD work.
Except Sony used both FreeBSD and OpenBSD for PS4 and PS3. Sony even got AMD to make some special GPU driver for the PS4 (which is x86-based), but there is no chance in hell that this driver will ever be available on FreeBSD.
Permissive licensing = being a cuck
>>54113763
Sony did contribute code to FreeBSD.
>>54112892
No thanks, I dont want to read the cuckold manifesto
>>54113810
Sauce
>>54113763
And so?
AMD doesn't give code on GPL projects too.
They didn't lost nothing, and Sony gave back a lot of code relevant to the operating system, excluding the GPU and graphic stack, who is irrelevant to the FreeBSD project anyways.
>>54113736
Your post is a mess. You started with an example that had no more to do with the GPL than it did with BSD or MIT or WTFPL. Then for some reason proposed the BSD license as a cure to all the problems you listed. Did you read what you were posting?
I mean your first point is silly; obviously if Adobe were going to release CS under a FOSS license they wouldn't pick a permissive license. Why would they allow their competitors to fork and change Photoshop without requiring them to contribute those improvements back to Adobe? It's like you thought of the most effective way to ruin their current business model. Your second point was just confusing - you went and listed things I can do under both the BSD and the GPL.
Good job covering none of the advantages of permissive licensing.
>>54113822
>I don't want my faith on Our Lord And Savior rms weakened
>>54113763
Stallmanist licensing = being a thief
>you can have this for free
>but you don't really have it
>in fact, everything you make in addition to this is actually under my rules
>your code is mine and i say what you do with it. ha.
Permissive licensing = being generous and understanding the meaning of "free" like a true christian.
Give not a beggar a coat with terms and conditions attached - jesus
>>54113831
>And so?
Sony and AMD are making billions of dollars from the hard work of enthusiasts and programmers that have worked for FREE and they are not obligated to contribute back.
If you don't see how this is a problem, then you don't understand capitalism and you're probably a socialist.
>>54113846
See >>54113848
You're a filthy exploitative socialist.
Ensure your user's freedom, you fucking tyrant
Should ALWAYS use BSD if you support freedom and capitalism.
>>54113866
Fuck off, you filthy socialist. You wouldn't know what capitalism was if it bit you in the back.
>>54113848
This isn't a problem for us.
We prefer good code to be spread instead of more bad code contributed back.
Understand this: BSD projects are A GIFT to the world. We don't expect contributions, but they are welcome.
Sony did good. Using Linux and they could have a lot of problems, like the issue with their shitty driver API.
>>54113856
If you don't want people to use personal copies of data as they wish, don't give it to them, you fucking commie. Such a violation of property is anti-capitalist.
Providing a service for free is providing a service for free. What do you care if someone manages to profit from that?
>be GPL fag
>mow lawns for free
>someone uses your mowed lawn as a selling point in their realestate business
>sue
>>54113829
http://timreview.ca/article/315
>>54113846
>Give not a beggar a coat with terms and conditions attached - jesus
Which of the BSD licenses have zero terms and conditions? You are in fact required by all of the BSD licenses to include the copyright as well as providing means of obtaining the source. The only difference between the GPL and BSD is that GPL also includes derivative work.
>>54113856
>GPL fags confuse privilege and freedom
If a GPL fag applied their philosophy to real life, "freedom of movement" would mean that every person must have a car, helicopter, personal jet, boat, and submarine.
Like "freedom to modify/study" requires the source because reversing, modding, and analyzing binaries is haaaaaaard.
>>54113887
There is not one mention of Sony or PS4/PS3 in that blog post, you fucking cuck.
>>54113882
>If you don't want people to use personal copies of data as they wish, don't give it to them, you fucking commie. Such a violation of property is anti-capitalist.
You can use it as you wish, that's the whole point of a free license.
However, you cannot distribute it and claim it to yourself.
The GPL protects the user, BSD protects greedy exploiters.
the freer the software the freer the people
>>54113898
Okay, so when applying philosophies to real life, I guess you're okay with basic human rights being reduced to privileges as well then, you socialist tyrant?
BSD doesn't ensure freedom, it just grants tyrants the means to enslave the user and otherwise engage in unethical behaviour. GPL ensures the user's freedom.
>>54113918
>protects greedy exploiters
How?
They can't sue BSD developers if the code they "stole" doesn't work o harms them.
They also can't claim the copyright of the code.
>>54113940
>comparing licenses to the issue of human slavery
How the fuck CS and IT pros can make these silly comparisons?
>>54113874
Sorry I'm kind of new here, is this a "troll" post?
>>54113942
>They can't sue BSD developers if the code they "stole" doesn't work o harms them.
How can you know if you have being harmed or not when you're not allowed to inspect and modify and adapt your program?
Hell, how can you even sue when you have to agree to a proprietary license and some shitty EULA in order to use it.
>>54113952
Not being allowed to have control over your own system is the same as being deprived of the right of private ownership.
No sane person would buy a chair he wasn't allowed to put wherever he wanted in his apartment, tighten the screws when it became wobbly etc. Yet, somehow people accept this with software because for the people who make legislation and copyright laws, software is fucking magic in a black box.
>>54113763
>Sony even got AMD to make some special GPU driver for the PS4 (which is x86-based), but there is no chance in hell that this driver will ever be available on FreeBSD.
LOL
FreeBSD got #rekt
>>54113634
Glad to let you know that the javascript is free, fellow freedom enthusiast.
https://github.com/4chan/4chan-JS
>>54112882
Does it even matter? Has anyone ever been caught using GPL code in proprietary software?
>>54113918
>The GPL protects the user, BSD protects greedy exploiters.
Daily reminder that this guy gets it. Additionally the GPL is capitalistic where as the BSD License is just commie shit.
lol @ all those edgy anti-capitalist teens ITT
grow up guys
>>54113992
Yes
http://gpl-violations.org/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html
>>54113989
That's awesome.
>>54113955
>How can you know if you have being harmed or not when you're not allowed to inspect and modify and adapt your program?
By the results the program make.
Do you the fuck know how software works?
You didn't need to inspect the code of the Therac-25 to know that the shit was killing people.
>>54113971
The problem is comparing chair, who are tangible, with software, who is essentially, nothing, but ideas. So the comparison is pointless.
And also still I can't relate that with the issue of slavery.
>>54113998
>anti-capitalist
Consumer rights is not anti-capitalist, you exploitative tyrant. See >>54113971
Free licences (GPL and BSD included) is very capitalist. The only difference between BSD and GPL is that the GPL is also copyleft and applies to derivative work.
>>54114013
>You didn't need to inspect the code of the Therac-25 to know that the shit was killing people.
But you need to inspect the code to know what MS/Apple sends from your computer to their HQ.
>>54113995
>capitalism
>enforcing positive liberties
>>54114027
GPL is communism. GTFO
>>54113995
yes GPL is very capitalistic, it follow this design: Linus Torvalds gets 1000000$+ a month and you neckbeard losers work for "thank you".
>>54114031
You still can't get what is "harmed" in the context of the BSD license.
>>54113718
Can't say for certain but I disagree.
>>54113738
>Companies do that all the time. Look at Oracle and RedHat.
Hence why I said,
>without providing support for it.
>They lost nothing from the fork, and usually companies contribute back to BSD projects.
Although some do, this doesn't always apply. In interviews with the WINE team, they stated that get very little back from WineX when it existed.
Another example is the PS4 which uses FreeBSD 9. I'm not aware that they provided anything back. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
>If they were GPL they would have never been forked in the first place.
I agree, hence why I'm not fond of the BSD.
>Where is this fork of Wine? I have never heard of it. Is it better than Wine?
See here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedega_%28software%29
Not sure if it's still active though.
>>54114013
>By the results the program make.
So you need to accept the licence, accept the EULA (which might include the clause "hurr durr you can't sue us for any reason what so ever") in order to tell what a piece of software does?
That's just utterly insane. What if I go to a restaurant and order food and ask if there are traces of peanut in the food, and the waiter just says "oh i can't reveal the ingredients, but just eat the food and if you die from an allergic reaction, you will know if there was peanuts in it".
>The problem is comparing chair, who are tangible, with software, who is essentially, nothing, but ideas.
It isn't "nothing" you imbecile, it's very tangible. Software is computer instructions in a specific order that your computer can run.
>And also still I can't relate that with the issue of slavery.
Free software has nothing to do with slavery, you're making a strawman argument. It's about the right to having control over your own property.
>>54114034
Yes, hard as it is to believe, capitalism is tightly coupled with economic liberty and individual rights.
>>54114043
No it's not. It's liberty, liberty is not communism.
>>54114082
Yes it is.
>>54114044
here is your reply
>>54114103
Communism is the deprivation of such rights as the right to private ownership. Free software ensures that your system isn't being expropriated, but remains freehand in the user's control. The GPL again, as other free copyleft licenses do, ensure that originally free software isn't perverted by third-party exploitative tyrants into something that enslaves the user.
An added bonus is that the GPL ensures that contributions remain free and go back into the community.
>>54114068
>And also still I can't relate that with the issue of slavery.
>Free software has nothing to do with slavery
Then why the fuck they resort to the argument of "making ilegal slavery" when comparing GPL with BSD?
>It isn't "nothing" you imbecile, it's very tangible. Software is computer instructions in a specific order that your computer can run.
Okey.
Open your computer.
Open your processor.
Send me a photo of the Linux Kernel running in the processor.
Can't find it?
No?
It's because software isn't a "tangible" thing per se. Software are "ideas". In fact, one of the arguments of Stallman for "free software" is "software is knowledge" and knowledge should be free (for some reason he doesn't state)
Software isn't the same as a machine. Software doesn't exist per se, needs a machine to work, and also the machine needs the software to work. Is for that why I say that comparing software with chairs and similar shit is futile.
>So you need to accept the licence, accept the EULA (which might include the clause "hurr durr you can't sue us for any reason what so ever") in order to tell what a piece of software does?
>licence
No, you moron, you aren't getting it.
When they say that one can't sue the BSD developers, the license always refers to the company or individual who choose to get the code, wrap their proprietary code and use or sell the code to others.
If they happen to be harmed for a bug in the BSD portion (Read "harmed" as "Killed by a race condition" or "The alarm failed to wake me because a bug in a counter") they can't sue the developers of the BSD code.
Yes yes BSD is finished and has been relatively unchanged since 2003; you've lost. Sony and Apple stole all your shit and you claim this is a good thing, meanwhile linux runs the internet and all embedded computers and is an actual candidate for desktops as it's been put on some PCs by OEMs. Nobody gives a shit about what happened in the 50s, 60s, 70s 80s or 90s at this point, since it's 2016.
You're a contrarian, you just freaked the fuck out because linux got too successful and you couldn't use it as your secret club anymore. All your BSD psuedo-advice is never meant to be actually listened to - if everyone you knew started using BSD, you'd flip shit even harder and go for haiku.
BSD shits are so completely fucked because they're spending all their time making themselves incompatible with the world with their basement religion. You can get all the linux software on BSD but I can count on one hand the times I've talked to BSD turds who didn't spout the same hipster nonsense about how that software isn't acceptable because it isn't in their preferred license. I consider BSD and obscure linux distros a virus because you've downloaded something that makes you on the same level as some grandma who downloaded ransomware. She can't do anything because of a virus, you can't do anything because of your shit mentality telling you to refuse to use 99.99% of all software ever made because it isn't shit enough. You're never going to make it through a single interview with this shit psuedo religion mentality.
>>54114146
But GPL slaves me to garbage software made by college dropouts and fatasses, Anon.
>>54114082
But for positive liberties you need someone who enforces it and positive liberties almost always make restrictions to some negative freedoms.
Thats why I always say that GPL aren't free, because I consider more important the negative liberties than the positive ones.
Lot of libertarians and pro-capitalist writers argue that.
>>54114159
>software isn't tangible
It is, go back to /v/ you programming illiterate.
>>54114146
This actually makes sense.
>>54114193
How the fuck you "touch" software?
>>54114186
Yes, but only a hardcore libertarian would argue that a ban on slavery is infringing freedom. You have to draw the line somewhere. And in either way, the GPL ensures that derivated work remains free and available to the community. This is the contract the software developer must make in order to use that code. It's as fair as any other source license, proprietary or not.
>>54114217
It's fucking electromagnetism and gate logic. How can you touch air?
>>54113507
There's nothing wrong with criticizing capitalism and there's nothing wrong with being a communist, it's time to stop relying on boogeymen from the cold war red scare.
>>54114166
That's a problem of the society and your lack of supporting real developers. As you can see, this problem would be easily solved if developers would get donations or real payment for their software. But that on the other hand would require an intelligent consumer which knows that nothing is gratis and exploiting others will kill their business.
>>54114246
Gate logic and electromagnetism per se aren't software.
Also, they are near the hardware side.
>>54114270
While this is true, in the end nothing is wrong with capitalism because it just tells everyone that you can charge what you want for what you deliver. In fact people have to be criticized for charging too much or giving bad conditions for their products.
>>54114146
>In this system people won't get to be my slaves, I'm being oppressed and deprived of my basic rights to exploit souls and land for my own benefit!
This is how you sound.
>>54114307
>software isn't just electromagnetism aka bits in ram
I bet you think software is some sort of magic.
>>54114313
>this is how you sound
Are you a woman? No one cares how anyone "sounds", especially in a fucking WRITTEN post.
>>54114311
You're confusing markets with capitalism. Capitalism specifically is the type of market where a few own the means of production (capital) while they pay wages for others to operate them to accumulate more capital. A market can be non capitalist, for example worker owned factories, like WinCo foods.
>>54113665
>muh real communism/socialism never existed meme
>muh soviet union/china/GDR/cuba were subverted
>muh just one more try meme
god I despise you people
>>54114238
>Yes, but only a hardcore libertarian would argue that a ban on slavery is infringing freedom.
No libertarian will argue that, because, slavery by itself involves aggression. Probably they will argue about the state role in ban slavery, in the grounds that they efforts will extend their monopolization of agresion but thats another ramification of the problem.
A libertarian will not defend slavery by any means, that requires to recognize some humans as property. But humans aren't property.
The problem I have with this comparison is why a license who doesn't enforce the contribution side makes you a "slave"
That's saying if you gave a gift to someone, that someone will own you.
Did you mom converted in you slave when she gave you your birthday present?
Stop discussing communism and capitalism FFS. Free software is about consumer (aka user) rights.
>>54114318
>untangible == magic
Average IT pro.
>>54114380
I'm not saying that BSD turns you into a slave. The BSD is a free license after all. I'm not saying that proprietary licences turn you into a slave either, but they take away certain rights/liberties/privileges that should be considered fundamental and in effect takes away (some of) your control and ownership over your own system.
This is unethical and it would not be accepted in any other industry or market.
>>54114356
>You're confusing markets with capitalism.
>Capitalism specifically is the type of market
Read again. Further a market is capitalism. The commie utopia would be that you have only one producer for cars and you don't have to choose between those because the government has already made that choice for you. A market (and therefore capitalism) gives you the opportunity to create many different cars and that others can choose which is the best one. Therefore a capitalism is something coming from nature and therefore a monopoly is something healthy. Even when it does bad things (like polluting the environment) because the majority of consumers has decided to support it.
>where a few own the means of production (capital) while they pay wages for others to operate them to accumulate more capital.
Thank you commie propaganda.
>>54114422
Then drop the "slavery" comparison, simply doesn't work.
Why is unethical anyways?
Remember that: No one forces you to use propietary software.
>>54114440
Are you retarded? I said it's a type of market, a subtype, it isn't equivalent to markets. Capitalism employs markets but a market can be non capitalist. They're separate things. But you're probably trolling anyway.
>commie propaganda
I'm literally explaining to you the definition of capitalism out of Wikipedia.
>>54114444
>Then drop the "slavery" comparison, simply doesn't work.
I never used the slavery comparison.
>Why is unethical anyways?
The same reason forced arbitrations through usage agreements are unethical. You are exploiting legislative loopholes to make users/consumers waive their rights.
>Remember that: No one forces you to use propietary software.
Well, nobody forces you to pay taxes either (you could simply give up earning an income). But that argument is banal and too simplified.
Not only are there software that you might have to use because there are no free alternatives (inb4 words to avoid), but in some cases software licenses come with a lock-in clause and/or compatibility issues that forces you to use another software (and thus "forced" to agree to another license) made by the same vendor.
>>54114482
A market can certainly not be non capitalistic. It can though be hard regulated which then looks certainly not like the typical capitalism anymore.
>I'm literally explaining to you the definition of capitalism out of Wikipedia.
Then you better think about what you read.
>>54113880
inb4
>waaaaaaah, you don't contriboot
>waaaaaaah, donate money to us
>waaaaaaah, I can't afford to run these obsolete serves in muh basement
>waaaaaaah, so may companies use openssh but we haven't seen a dime
>waaaaaaah, PAY US FOR OUR "GIFT"!
fuck off
