> > Yes, I grant you the right to use my software in any application you may
> > write and make money with, but I *DO NOT* grant you the right to modify my
> > license in any ways. See bellow if I would publish this:
>
> If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> proprietary application under a proprietary licence, and there is no
> requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> licence by the proprietary developers.
When a vendor distributes parts of our source code -- as source code,
the license is extremely clear. Let me quote it, and mark it up a
bit:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* are met:
^^^^^^^
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that too hard to read?
> If you use a BSD licence, you are allowing your code to be included in a
> free application under the GNU General Public Licence, and there is no
> requirement for your parts of the source to be distributed under the BSD
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> licence by the GPL-software developers.
So some people want to include our source, and redistribute it. The
same applies:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* are met:
^^^^^^^
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, is that too hard to read?
> Now, I must admit that the second part doesn't seem quite right to me,
> and I believe that the GPL-software developers should release any
> changes to your sections of the code under your licence.
Not should. MUST. Read the license text again. Even if it was not
stated in the licence term, it is a Copyright right which the author
retains unless he surrenders it.
> However, why is
> it perfectly okay for proprietary software developers to behave in this
> way and not for free software developers?
I assume you are talking about proprietary software developers
releasing our code as BINARY, instead of as SOURCE code. Let me show
you the next term of the license:
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
However, proprietary software developers who release our code AS
SOURCE CODE still must do this:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
--- same as everyone else, whether they be the FSF or whoever. Yes,
there have been cases of the FSF themselves getting very close to
toeing this line in the past. Like in Bison.
> The BSD licence doesn't allow the changing of the licence,
None of the licenses we are talking about allow "changing the
license".
> but it
> doesn't prevent extra restrictions being added to it.
That's bullshit. Read it again. The BSD license gives the recipient
some abilities, but retains others. One of those is that the source
code must retain the license. Other restrictions... why do we care?
Our code is still alive.
HP and Cisco has included OpenSSH -- with changes they did not give
back we are sure -- in all their router products, and none of you
would argue that the world is not a richer place because of that. As
a result of our giving nature, the internet at large is much more
secure now.
> The extra
> restrictions may be a proprietary EULA, or they may be the GPL's
> requirement for source distribution. There's no difference, from the
> point of view of the BSD licence; it's all just additional restrictions.
Our license is extremely clear as to what is permitted and what is
not.
Richard is amongst those who wants to muddle the situation. When
things are clear, Richard can't play with words and practice his
hypocrisy.
