Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!hookup!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 8 Dec 1995 20:19:14 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 192
Message-ID: <4aa6k2$9et@josie.abo.fi>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi> <DJ6IJE.78D@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorn.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30731 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10722
John S. Dyson, in <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com>:
>In article <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote:
[deletia about committees - I'm happy the FreeBSD model works well for
the FreeBSD developers; my personal experiences of that sort of work
are different, but I never said I knew it all]
>Also, the question originally was regarding the
>openess of development, and at least we have a structure that directly
>supports communication amongst peers
So you have; but I disagree that you'd be the only ones to have such a
structure. You make it sound like Linux developers would lack one; I'm
not a developer, but I rather doubt that's the case.
[...]
>>What about them? If their authors had wanted credit, they could have
>>put attributions in those files. If you want to know what license
>>they're under, it's the same GPL as the rest of the kernel source -
>>including those source files that have explicit copyright notices.
>First, it is very easy to put a copyright message at the top of every
>file describing the terms or a pointer to the terms of use. I would not
>risk my business using files without any copyright notices at all.
?!
I have _no_ clue what you're on about. The copyright and license
statement for the Linux kernel is right at the top of the tree, in the
COPYING file.
>>Whether or not you explicitly spell it out in each source file, the
>>license on the Linux kernel is the GPL, and the copyrights are held by
>>the authors unless otherwise explicitly stated.
>How do I know that, since the files are seperable from the rest of the
>kernel?
Define "separable". Of course you can distribute them each on a floppy
by themselves, but that would make no sense; one source file doth not
a kernel make. What would be the point?
Besides, that would arguably be a violation of the GPL. If you're
going to distribute the source, you have to distribute _all_ of it.
> Or aren't they. If they aren't then the software is tied up
>and not re-usable (I know that the software can be seperated though.) The
>other senerio is that I have to add a copyright to the file -- but whose???
You're getting me more and more confused. Could you please explain
what you mean, in English?
[...]
>>Rrright. So if I anonymously release something under a BSD copyright,
>>I'm guaranteed to get credit for this work I've never put my name on.
>>I think not. But the difference in practice is nil - put your name in
>>a GPL'ed source file, and the GPL protects it like it protects the
>>rest of that source.
>Well, I think that you are playing games here regarding the BSD
>copyright :-). Read the BSD copyright -- it says that
>redistributions must contain the disclaimer and copyright -- which
>usually contains the names of the authors.
And your point is...?
If a GPL'ed source tree contains the names of the authors, you could
well argue that the GPL protects those like it protects the rest of
that source tree. I don't see how your rights are any worse off on
this point with either copyright.
[...]
>>If they use your code and don't disclose that they've done so, you're
>>guaranteed not to be credited for it. Did I misread you somewhere,
>>surely you didn't mean to say _that_?
>Redistributions in binary form must contain the copyright notice.
Then if BSDI contains your code, it contains a copyright notice
crediting you as coauthor of BSDI, am I reading you correctly?
[...]
>>Well, surprise - you can do just the same with GPL'ed software. Only
>>hitch is, the product you then release pretty much has to be GPL'ed as
>>well - if you can put up with that, you can do nearly anything you
>>please with GPL'ed source.
>But what about binaries -- you know -- the stuff that people actually use.
The people that want binaries are free to compile binaries from the
source they've been given access to. ;-)
>The distribution of source code "requirement" still gets in my way.
Your way must be very narrow, John, that something so trifling can
obstruct it.
Let's say you're distributing a program in binary form, OK? So you're
somehow getting a machine readable file (the executable) of something
between a few KB's and a few MB's in size from you to the people who
want to use it. Usually, the machine readable (compressed) source will
be between the same size to seldom more than ten times that size; in
practice, given that you'll want to distribute documentation as well,
your bandwidth would have to be *extremely* limited for source
distribution to be a technical problem.
If it were a legal problem I could understand it; but if so, I fail to
see how binary distribution would not also be a legal problem of at
least as great a magnitude.
>What about GPLed code that isn't so common -- how can I guarantee
>its availability without making it available myself.
How can you guarantee binary availability without making it available
yourself?
[...]
>>Seriously, John, in 99% of any cases either one of us is interested in
>>this is a nonissue, since Unix software is still traditionally
>>distributed as source _only_. I've not run into any binary-only
>>distribution of any of the *BSD's so far, have you?
>But what about applications that might be developed and used for long
>periods. Note that those can be built with GPL'ed libraries.
The LGPL is a different story; I'm not up to its specifics (I've never
yet had much cause to make or recompile shared libs). Applications
that might be in use for long times you'd _definitely_ want to have
source for, otherwise in a few years changing hardware platform might
prove a _real_ pain!
[...]
>>One more CD in a set of four or five to hold the compressed source for
>>what's on the other ones. For crying out loud, there are *games* being
>>delivered on no less than *seven* CD's already! Pressing one CD was
>>last I heard of it still cheap.
>But it does make a difference in profit margin -- especially considering
>the differences in volume between a seven CD game and a 2-3 CD software
>distribution.
Note that the GPL never tells you what to charge for that CD.
Wanna slap on an extra US$ 20:- for the extra CD to hold the source?
The GPL doesn't object. If anything makes a difference in profit
margin, _you_ do. Forced to press another CD? Put "source code
provided AT NO EXTRA COST" on the cover, use it as a sales argument.
That's what I see Linux CD vendors doing all over the place.
[...]
>[...] I believe that they have the right to take
>the products of my work (if I give them permission -- which the BSD Copyright
>allows) and reuse it as long as I get credit for the pieces
>that I do -- whether or not they decided to release their stuff to the
>public is a freedom that they morally should have. In essence, I believe that
>they should be minimally encumbered by my political or social beliefs.
We seem to have a political disagreement here; IMHO if somebody
benefits from my "free" work, it is only common courtesy for them to
"give something back", if not to me personally then to the people for
whom I did my work in the first place - the "free software community",
if there is such a thing. IMHO it would be inconsiderate and rude for
somebody not to contribute back improvements made to something they
got for "free" like that; I would consider it mildly immoral.
Your mileage may vary, of course; nobody said we had to agree on
everything, after all. :-)
[...]
>>And stars know it took me a bit of brainwork to grok the GPL; but I
>>wasn't using the word properly, I apologize for being unclear. I meant
>>to say the GPL takes a more "legal", cut-in-stone approach, as opposed
>>to merely trusting that "nobody will do anything nasty with this
>>code"; it spells out what is and isn't allowed.
>And if your are not a lawyer, I would be very impressed if you understood
>the ramifications of the GPL, considering the large amount of legaleze in
>it.
How do I go about proving I do any such thing, especially considering
copyright law might very well vary between our two countries? I get
its general idea, however; I understand the purposes it was intended
to serve. Then again, that's not too hard.
>[...]My position is that I am allowing the use of my code with as
>little hinderence as possible -- as long as other individuals don't
>take credit for it. GPL establishes additional conditions.
Yes, conditions I want to impose; I wouldn't want to give people as
free access to my work as the BSD copyright would give them, I want it
more restricted than that. The GPL seems to fit me well.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
-- nin