Re: Commercial Licensing
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:41:04PM -0500, Someth San wrote: Hello, I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my codes to a public community. You haven't said if commercial use includes the distribution of executables. Note that the GPL requirement to disclose source applies only if binaries are distributed outside your establishment. You can make commercial use of the device inside your firm of GPL code without violating the GPL. This is often forgotten in discussion, and leads to unnecessary worry. Daniel Feenberg ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Commercial Licensing
On 10/08/13 03:41, Someth San wrote: Hello, I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my codes to a public community. If you can provide some information/direction in this regard, I would greatly appreciate it. As others have said, you can do what you want to do with FreeBSD licenced code. The third party components in the base system that are under different licences are in /usr/src/contrib and /usr/src/gnu, so look there for potential problems. And as Daniel has said, if you're not going to distribute the binaries even the GPL code isn't a problem. In any case, you should consult a lawyer specializing in *software* copyright, not just any copyright lawyer because depending on what you want to do, GPL can be very complicated. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Commercial Licensing
Hello, I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my codes to a public community. If you can provide some information/direction in this regard, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Regards, Someth San Indesyne Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Commercial Licensing
I'm not a lawyer, but you need to read the BSD license. You can pretty much do anything you want with something that is licensed by it. On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Someth San s...@indesyne.com wrote: Hello, I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my codes to a public community. If you can provide some information/direction in this regard, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Regards, Someth San Indesyne Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- James Gosnell, ACP ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Commercial Licensing
Greetings Someth, With FreeBSD you are free use as you see fit. Think of the BSD license in terms of 'Free' beer and not the freedom to look under the hood like some other mock free licenses. If this were not the case then Apple would not have been able to derive Mac OS X from FreeBSD and close the source of their product. The nature of the various FreeBSD licenses allow for you to do this with the exception of some newer versions of the license the include an anti relicensing clause which essentially prohibits you from taking a BSD licensed code based and relicensing it under one of the GPL versions. At this point those sorts of addendum's are rare but definitely becoming more popular. Ultimately there is not requirement that you give back to the BSD community in the form of your code additions however you are strongly encourage to do so, the choice is yours. Finally I would recommend consulting an IP attorney for a review of the current license just to ensure that everything is still as it was explained to me a long time ago by mine. Regards, Mikel On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Someth San s...@indesyne.com wrote: Hello, I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my codes to a public community. If you can provide some information/direction in this regard, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Regards, Someth San Indesyne Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Commercial Licensing
GPL'ed software in the base system: https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:58 PM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:41:04PM -0500, Someth San wrote: Hello, I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my codes to a public community. This requirement of disclosure isn't so much an open source thing, it's required by some popular licenses (like the GPL). The rather large group of people in software has groups that prefer restrictive licenses like the GPL, and other groups who prefer licenses with fewer restrictions. Be aware that FreeBSD isn't covered by a single license. Rather, it is made up of a large number of pieces of software that came from various sources over a lot of years. In general FreeBSD tries to avoid using those kinds of license that you are saying you want to avoid. But in the set of all software that make up FreeBSD there is still code left covered by it. With a little care you can avoid getting bitten by this. Which leads to my next point... If you can provide some information/direction in this regard, I would greatly appreciate it. I want to second the advice of talking to a lawyer who specializes in copyright. The lawyer should be working for you and paid by you (or your business, etc). Any time real money is involved you should hire a lawyer. Any time real money is involved you should hire a lawyer. Any time the outcome matters you should hire a lawyer. Seriously, your use of the term EULA shows you need to talk to a lawyer. Give your lawyer the FreeBSD source code and your lawyer can look at it and advise you. But don't let this scare you. With a little care you will probably be just fine. -- A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor ... in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser ... in an irregular way fascinating to cats,... -- US patent 5443036, Method of exercising a cat ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org -- James Gosnell, ACP ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
snip How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own copyright. They all provide the same concept, use the same names for their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as their base. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
Hi, On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:26:15 -0400 Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: snip How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own copyright. They all provide the same concept, use the same names for their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as their base. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? just go back in history and find out why the ATT code in BSD was rewritten. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:26:15 -0400 Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: snip How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own copyright. Look very carefully at the copyrights involved, you will see copyright attributions retained very carefully (see for example the file /usr/src/COPYRIGHT in FreeBSD). They all provide the same concept, use the same names for their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as their base. These features are defined in open standards (POSIX and SUS) for anyone who cares to implement them. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? That's simple in essence, if it's written by taking a copy of the code and modifying it then it's a fork (until and unless you can prove that not one single line of the original code remains), if it's written from scratch with no reference to the original code then it's a rewrite. I suppose there are edge cases where a rewrite may include a portion taken from the original (assuming compatible licensing), or where a fork has been so heavily modified that little of the original remains. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On 4/1/2013 11:41 AM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: Copyright covers expressions of ideas. It does not cover the ideas themselves. You can't copyright a concept, you can't copyright filesystems, and I believe in the past few years a high court in the EU ruled that you can't copyright a programming language. None of the things mentioned above are covered by copyright. Copyright would cover the implementations of these things. That's why it was necessary to reimplement much of BSD. Here's where it gets annoying, copyrights cover implementations, and patents can cover the ideas. A lot of patents use an on a computer line to get it called an invention instead of an math equation. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote: If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release it under it's own license? For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I would have to license things via the BSD license. You cannot yourself change the license on code you do not hold the copyright on. Period. If you make changes and redistribute them then add your copyright notice with license to the files. Do not remove the existing copyright notice(s) and license(s). You hold the copyright for stuff you wrote, but the original copyright stays for the parts that did not come from you. Parts means any fraction of a file from the whole file down to small amounts. You are allowed to add restrictions (unless the existing license says you can't), but you are not allowed to loosen the existing restrictions (unless the existing license says you can). Also, it follows from the copyright that your license only applies to the parts copyrighted by you. The existing licenses are similar in that they apply only to their parts of the file. All licenses must be followed when the file is treated (copied, used, etc) as a whole. Make sure your license isn't incompatible with the license that applies to other parts of the same file. If that happens then how it will turn out in court is anyone's guess. The file may not be usable by the public, or the incompatible license terms added by you may be struck down, or a judge could cook up something else. It can't be predicted in advance so just don't even go there. Giving credit where it is due is an important social convention, and I'm glad to see that you aren't planning on doing anything unethical like breaking it. But copyright comes from the law and thus must be obeyed even if you wanted to break purely social conventions. Read up on copyright, and when you do pay close attention to the reliability of the source. The issue has become very political in the past 15 years or so. Don't be badly advised by someone who has their own agenda. Most people, to varying degrees, have their own agenda. Finally, if money is at stake (directly or indirectly) I strongly advise talking to a copyright lawyer in particular. That's just general advice. Taking advice from random people online is not a good idea if any money is involved, but I'd give the same advice to my best friend. The general rule applies here as it does elsewhere: You get what you pay for. Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Mar 31, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote: kpn...@pobox.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote: If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release it under it's own license? For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I would have to license things via the BSD license. You cannot yourself change the license on code you do not hold the copyright on. Period. If you make changes and redistribute them then add your copyright notice with license to the files. Do not remove the existing copyright notice(s) and license(s). You hold the copyright for stuff you wrote, but the original copyright stays for the parts that did not come from you. Parts means any fraction of a file from the whole file down to small amounts. You are allowed to add restrictions (unless the existing license says you can't), but you are not allowed to loosen the existing restrictions (unless the existing license says you can). Also, it follows from the copyright that your license only applies to the parts copyrighted by you. The existing licenses are similar in that they apply only to their parts of the file. All licenses must be followed when the file is treated (copied, used, etc) as a whole. Make sure your license isn't incompatible with the license that applies to other parts of the same file. If that happens then how it will turn out in court is anyone's guess. The file may not be usable by the public, or the incompatible license terms added by you may be struck down, or a judge could cook up something else. It can't be predicted in advance so just don't even go there. Giving credit where it is due is an important social convention, and I'm glad to see that you aren't planning on doing anything unethical like breaking it. But copyright comes from the law and thus must be obeyed even if you wanted to break purely social conventions. Read up on copyright, and when you do pay close attention to the reliability of the source. The issue has become very political in the past 15 years or so. Don't be badly advised by someone who has their own agenda. Most people, to varying degrees, have their own agenda. Finally, if money is at stake (directly or indirectly) I strongly advise talking to a copyright lawyer in particular. That's just general advice. Taking advice from random people online is not a good idea if any money is involved, but I'd give the same advice to my best friend. The general rule applies here as it does elsewhere: You get what you pay for. Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? No, copyrights are more like artists signing their work -- in a standardized way -- but every bit as legally binding. They are first come priority in the court of law and if-ever disputed, often require correlative evidentiary proof to show true ownership (a notarized copy of the work mailed to yourself kept in an unopened envelope perhaps). Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? Be careful here. The answer to your question is NO. If a work lacks a license in the source, it may be on the website. If you can't find a license, you must always contact the author(s) before forking something. If you can neither find the license nor the contact info, it's always best to assume it is not for reuse. Even the, if you used code that was from an unknown origin with no license and no author, you should indicate as such in the header of such source files. Essentially what it boils down to, is that in the court of law (if someone indicts or brings a civil suit) you may have to account for the origin of every line -- so that's why: 1. If a file has an inline license (beerware, gpl, bsd, apple, or even one you make up all your own), it must stay there to mark the origins 2. If a file is lacking an inline license, it is often because the license is too long or unwieldy to embed and it is in a COPYING file distributed with the source code OR in a terms of agreement on the website (in which case you should download it and place
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote: Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? With _which_ government? :-) Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you are the creator. There is nothing you need to do to achieve the copyright - it's yours by acting. At the moment you write something like (C) Joe Sixpack 2012 it's set in stone. There might be other ways to prove (!) copyright, e. g. when one of your files appears in someone else's work, but now with the originator line saying (C) Nick Nosewhite 2013. In case of a court trial which involves copyright, you can prove from your CVS log of creation (or whatever source management system or even file system you use) that _you_ have been writing that code, nobody else. Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? I would assume this. Imagine a snippet of code with no author mentioned in it (or in the source it comes from, or any file it is accompanied by), how would you be able to conclude something _else_ than this is public domain with _no_ copyright holder? Note that copyright and license are two different things. A skilled lawyer will be able to explain it more precisely and show you how it applies for the jurisdiction you're living in. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:31:43 +0200, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote: Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? With _which_ government? :-) Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you are the creator. There is nothing you need to do to achieve the copyright - it's yours by acting. At the moment you write something like (C) Joe Sixpack 2012 it's set in stone. There might be other ways to prove (!) copyright, e. g. when one of your files appears in someone else's work, but now with the originator line saying (C) Nick Nosewhite 2013. In case of a court trial which involves copyright, you can prove from your CVS log of creation (or whatever source management system or even file system you use) that _you_ have been writing that code, nobody else. Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? I would assume this. Imagine a snippet of code with no author mentioned in it (or in the source it comes from, or any file it is accompanied by), how would you be able to conclude something _else_ than this is public domain with _no_ copyright holder? I think you are wrong here. quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_software: Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant copyright, patent, or trademark rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way. Note the wording explicitly disclaim. While German law has something like a triviality threshold which may well apply to very small code snippets, i'd say no included license by default means all rights reserved. Regards, Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: use of the kernel and licensing
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:43:27 +0200, Michael Ross wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:31:43 +0200, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote: Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? With _which_ government? :-) Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you are the creator. There is nothing you need to do to achieve the copyright - it's yours by acting. At the moment you write something like (C) Joe Sixpack 2012 it's set in stone. There might be other ways to prove (!) copyright, e. g. when one of your files appears in someone else's work, but now with the originator line saying (C) Nick Nosewhite 2013. In case of a court trial which involves copyright, you can prove from your CVS log of creation (or whatever source management system or even file system you use) that _you_ have been writing that code, nobody else. Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain? I would assume this. Imagine a snippet of code with no author mentioned in it (or in the source it comes from, or any file it is accompanied by), how would you be able to conclude something _else_ than this is public domain with _no_ copyright holder? I think you are wrong here. quoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_software: Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, an author automatically obtains the exclusive copyright to anything they have written, and local law may similarly grant copyright, patent, or trademark rights by default. The Berne Convention also covers programs. Therefore, a program is automatically subject to a copyright, and if it is to be placed in the public domain, the author must explicitly disclaim the copyright and other rights on it in some way. Note the wording explicitly disclaim. This exactly expresses my interpretation, maybe I didn't find the right words. Obtaining copyright is implicit (by creating stuff), giving up copyright is an explicit act. Copyright information and licensing statements don't have to be neccessarily included in the file in question, they could also be in a file coming with the file in question, such as a LICENSE text file or AUTHORS, or in a manpage refering to a specific program (even though it's quite common to place that information at least as comments in source files). No not finding this information in the source and therefor _assuming_ there is no copyright holder or no license (and therefor all rights granted) is wrong. An exception might actually be code snippets below the 'triviality threshold' (as you mentioned is at least known in Germany) which have been published anonymously. In this case, neither an author or a license can be found, and in the absence of _both_, the assumption of the snippet being in the public domain would at least be undertandable. If it is _valid_ under all circumstances and in all juristictions, that's a totally different questions, to be answered by two lawyers with three opinions. :-) While German law has something like a triviality threshold which may well apply to very small code snippets, i'd say no included license by default means all rights reserved. As for licenses (copyright aside), this may very well be. If no rights are explicitely granted (even the do whatever you want right), it could be invalid to simply _assume_ such a right. The no license included approach, on the other hand, could also show the authors attitude as I don't care, also a valid standpoint... -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
use of the kernel and licensing
If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release it under it's own license? For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I would have to license things via the BSD license. Respectively Yours, Maikoda Raine Arrogant Penguin Industries ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD Licensing
As the FreeBSD license is less restrictive than the GPL, it's pretty much safe to say that wherever you are permitted install GPL'd software, you could substitute FreeBSD licensed software without legal penalty. (Note: *install* -- redistribution is a different matter) You do not have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software: it explicitly says that it only covers copying, distribution and modification and not running the program. The FreeBSD licence on the other hand only allows you to use the software if you agree to the conditions - which only affect redistribution, so if you do not redistribute it, the licence terms do not affect you. I suppose a theoretical difference is that if you redistribute FreeBSD in violation of the conditions you no longer have the right to use it, which is not true for the GPL. -- Richard -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Free BSD Licensing
Free BSD representative, I am inquiring if Free BSD is installable under the The GNU General Public License (short: GNU GPL or simply GPL)? Need to verify that for the requester of this software as coming through our subcontracts division. Jack Guelff Subcontracts Administrator Software and Intellectual Property Licensing Office: (319) 263-0985 Fax: (319) 295-2075 jegue...@rockwellcollins.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD Licensing
FBSD has it's own licensing. I'll defer to others as to the details, or visit www.freebsd.org - Original Message - From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org To: questi...@freebsd.org questi...@freebsd.org Sent: Tue Mar 23 09:40:15 2010 Subject: Free BSD Licensing Free BSD representative, I am inquiring if Free BSD is installable under the The GNU General Public License (short: GNU GPL or simply GPL)? Need to verify that for the requester of this software as coming through our subcontracts division. Jack Guelff Subcontracts Administrator Software and Intellectual Property Licensing Office: (319) 263-0985 Fax: (319) 295-2075 jegue...@rockwellcollins.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD Licensing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/03/2010 14:40:15, jegue...@rockwellcollins.com wrote: Free BSD representative, I am inquiring if Free BSD is installable under the The GNU General Public License (short: GNU GPL or simply GPL)? Need to verify that for the requester of this software as coming through our subcontracts division. Mostly FreeBSD uses the FreeBSD license: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html This is an open-source license according to the OSI terms. Some software within the FreeBSD distribution is licensed under the GPL or LGPL. As the FreeBSD license is less restrictive than the GPL, it's pretty much safe to say that wherever you are permitted install GPL'd software, you could substitute FreeBSD licensed software without legal penalty. (Note: *install* -- redistribution is a different matter) Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkupGVkACgkQ8Mjk52CukIx/EACghGCkDasLFw/1tVlBO/mlZR3f P0UAn0iZDeRfWg8t30lPXfHSgo+NycHx =QjnI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD Licensing
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, jegue...@rockwellcollins.com wrote: Free BSD representative, I am inquiring if Free BSD is installable under the The GNU General Public License (short: GNU GPL or simply GPL)? Need to verify that for the requester of this software as coming through our subcontracts division. How do you install something under a license? FreeBSD is developed and distributed using the BSD license. More information is available at www.freebsd.org If you're wondering whether or not FreeBSD is freely available and can be installed in a commerical environment then the short answer would be yes. However, I encourage you to read the licensing clauses available on www.freebsd.org, specifically here: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html This wiki gives a decent overview of the differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licence Henrik -- Henrik Hudson li...@rhavenn.net - God, root, what is difference? Pitr; UF ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Free BSD Licensing
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM, jegue...@rockwellcollins.com wrote: Free BSD representative, I am inquiring if Free BSD is installable under the The GNU General Public License (short: GNU GPL or simply GPL)? Need to verify that for the requester of this software as coming through our subcontracts division. Jack Guelff Subcontracts Administrator Software and Intellectual Property Licensing Office: (319) 263-0985 Fax: (319) 295-2075 jegue...@rockwellcollins.com I am NOT a lawyer , therefore my views can not be considered a legal advice . I think , your best action would be to ask to a lawyer ( being expert on copyright and licensing issues ) for legal issues of such a question to be answered properly . If you consider GPL , its most important requirement is that when a GPL licensed software is distributed to others , the source is also should be supplied with respect to GPL license rules . A BSD licensed software can be used in ANY WAY without removing its license and copyright terms . If you study http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CombinePublicDomainWithGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD you will see that it is not possible to combine each free and permissive licensed software with a GPL licensed software . Therefore , for FreeBSD , it is necessary to review each file with respect to GPL combination . Another point is that GPL license can cover only USED parts within a GPL licensed software . If FreeBSD is not , let´s say , called by , or linked into a GPL licensed software , it will NOT be GPL license covered . It is obvious that any software with its own license terms can NOT be re-licensed as GPL licensed software , at least because GPL can NOT remove its own license , but it can or can not be utilized within a GPL licensed software . As a result , my opinion is that FreeBSD can NOT be re-licensed as a GPL licensed software as a whole . In reality , this is not necessary also because FreeBSD sources are open to public through its source repositories . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source code licensing questions
Thank you all for your detailed answers. Indeed, sounds like we will need some lawyer advice... My gut feeling is that we are going with the BSD license with day one. I am relatively new to open source myself (Been developing most of my work on closed source UNIX systems and windows), but I hope to catch up very soon. On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk m.e.sanlit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM, son goku ryu.pla...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!! It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that because of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel all over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed compared to dtrace. I wonder what all the proprietary modules for Solaris (VxVM jumps to mind...) or BSD do? Or there are no such modules anymore... http://www.sun.com/cddl/ - http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html - *1.3. “Covered Software”* means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. - *1.6. “Larger Work”* means a work which combines Covered Software or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. - - *3.6. Larger Works.* You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software. -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_license/ http://www.opensolaris.com/licensing/opensolaris_license/ http://www.netbeans.org/cddl.html http://www.openmediacommons.org/CDDL_License.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual propertyhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html ”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License http://soundadvice.id.au/blog/2005/02/04/#cddl === http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/ *If I use code licensed under the CDDL in my proprietary product, will I have to share my source code?* Yes, for any source files that are licensed under the CDDL and any modifications you make. However, you don't need to share the source for your proprietary source files. === http://lwn.net/Articles/114839/ I am NOT a lawyer , therefore my opinions does NOT have any legal value . In short , CDDL does NOT require to disclose your OWN proprietary sources , BUT ONLY requires to explicitly supply CDDL licensed parts with any changes applied to them with respect to CDDL license . If you are a commercial entity my suggestion would be to seek legal advise from a lawyer with expertise on software licenses and copyrights . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
source code licensing questions
Hi all, I am a part of a team that is planning to open a start-up company. We plan to ship a revolutionary storage controller. We are now investigating possible OS for the product. The choices that we came up with are either LINUX or Free-BSD. I am strongly biased toward Free-BSD, however I still need to understand the licensing impacts of using a Free-BSD kernel. Browsing the web about the BSD license just made me confused. Seems like to understand these licensing issues you must be a lawyer. I got the following questions regarding source license: 1.Do I need to open the source code for my product if I use the BSD kernel as part of the product? 2.If I do some kernel changes, do I need to open those changes as well? 3.What about Dtrace, if I use DTrace will I need to open code that use it? 4.Suppose the answer for 1-3 is no, s there any other reason why I need to open the code. Please understand that my questions stem from the fact that we are afraid of exposing our source code, especially during the first phases of the project. It is more than possible, that we will re-consider our approach in later stages and open some or all our code to the community. Thanks!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source code licensing questions
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:58:14AM +0300, son goku wrote: [...] Browsing the web about the BSD license just made me confused. Seems like to understand these licensing issues you must be a lawyer. Basically the BSD licence is: do what you like, but: 1. don't say you did it all by yourself. 2. you can't blame us for anything. 3. Include the COPYRIGHT notice. I got the following questions regarding source license: 1.Do I need to open the source code for my product if I use the BSD kernel as part of the product? No. 2.If I do some kernel changes, do I need to open those changes as well? No. 3.What about Dtrace, if I use DTrace will I need to open code that use it? The CDDL licence seems to imply that you do. 4.Suppose the answer for 1-3 is no, s there any other reason why I need to open the code. Only if you feel like it. -- Jonathan Chen j...@chen.org.nz -- Jesus saves. Allah forgives. Cthulu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source code licensing questions
Jonathan Chen wrote: 4.Suppose the answer for 1-3 is no, s there any other reason why I need to open the code. Only if you feel like it. I'd make that, Only if you feel like it or would like the warm glow of giving back to the community (and of course all those extra eyes to audit and improve your code ;) ) That said their is no obligation at all. Vince ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source code licensing questions
Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!! It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that because of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel all over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed compared to dtrace. I wonder what all the proprietary modules for Solaris (VxVM jumps to mind...) or BSD do? Or there are no such modules anymore... On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Vincent Hoffman vi...@unsane.co.uk wrote: Jonathan Chen wrote: 4.Suppose the answer for 1-3 is no, s there any other reason why I need to open the code. Only if you feel like it. I'd make that, Only if you feel like it or would like the warm glow of giving back to the community (and of course all those extra eyes to audit and improve your code ;) ) That said their is no obligation at all. Vince ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source code licensing questions
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM, son goku ryu.pla...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!! It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that because of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel all over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed compared to dtrace. I wonder what all the proprietary modules for Solaris (VxVM jumps to mind...) or BSD do? Or there are no such modules anymore... http://www.sun.com/cddl/ - http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html - *1.3. “Covered Software”* means (a) the Original Software, or (b) Modifications, or (c) the combination of files containing Original Software with files containing Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. - *1.6. “Larger Work”* means a work which combines Covered Software or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License. - - *3.6. Larger Works.* You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software. -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt http://opensolaris.org/os/licensing/opensolaris_license/ http://www.opensolaris.com/licensing/opensolaris_license/ http://www.netbeans.org/cddl.html http://www.openmediacommons.org/CDDL_License.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing/cddllicense.txt This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual propertyhttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html ”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License http://soundadvice.id.au/blog/2005/02/04/#cddl === http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/ *If I use code licensed under the CDDL in my proprietary product, will I have to share my source code?* Yes, for any source files that are licensed under the CDDL and any modifications you make. However, you don't need to share the source for your proprietary source files. === http://lwn.net/Articles/114839/ I am NOT a lawyer , therefore my opinions does NOT have any legal value . In short , CDDL does NOT require to disclose your OWN proprietary sources , BUT ONLY requires to explicitly supply CDDL licensed parts with any changes applied to them with respect to CDDL license . If you are a commercial entity my suggestion would be to seek legal advise from a lawyer with expertise on software licenses and copyrights . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: source code licensing questions
On 27 jul 2009, at 14:42, son goku wrote: Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!! It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that because of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel all over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed compared to dtrace. Why don't you write it and release it under a BSD license? gr Arno ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 09:47:52AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: One thing that did not cross my mind prior was regarding the comments Chad made, use in media other than within the programming scope itself. I think that's an important consideration that most programmers overlook. One of the greatest benefits of open source software is the availability of the code for viewing by people who want to *learn*. To use licenses that make it difficult to include code in a single instructional work distributed under the terms of a single license seems extremely short-sighted to me. Even if you don't think your code will ever be used in such a way, code that *incorporates* yours may some day be suitable for such a purpose, and it would be nice if the license you choose lends itself to such use in the future. FYI, almost all of my apps are for systems/network management and automation. I've written an application that bridges our wireless hotspots to our payment bank site (the bank supplied me a Perl module), through to radius, and with an expiry method to automatically remove the users so that the entire process is hands off. The bank's Perl module may well impose constraints on how you can license your code, in addition to any restrictions that may exist as a result of employment agreements and contracts, at least if the module ends up being part of, or a source of necessary functionality for, your code. Most of my code would have to be changed to make it generic and not so site specific before being put out there. Being that I'm not really a programmer, having my code out there for peer review would make it much, much better if it was useful. (I'd probably be on the receiving end of finger pointing and laughing, but that's ok ;) That's a great attitude. I wish you the best of luck in coming to an equitable and satisfying decision about licensing, and in future coding efforts. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Mike Maples, as quoted by James Gleick: My job is to get a fair share of the software applications market, and to me that's 100 percent. pgpGaCcEmMWPz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Licensing
Chad Perrin wrote: [..huge snip..] I hope you get some value from my rambling. I have gained very much value from what everyone has had to say, and I want to thank everyone. Although I have very much reading to do, I've come to a few conclusions thus far. One thing that did not cross my mind prior was regarding the comments Chad made, use in media other than within the programming scope itself. FYI, almost all of my apps are for systems/network management and automation. I've written an application that bridges our wireless hotspots to our payment bank site (the bank supplied me a Perl module), through to radius, and with an expiry method to automatically remove the users so that the entire process is hands off. Most of my code would have to be changed to make it generic and not so site specific before being put out there. Being that I'm not really a programmer, having my code out there for peer review would make it much, much better if it was useful. (I'd probably be on the receiving end of finger pointing and laughing, but that's ok ;) Thanks all! Steve smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve Dear Steve , You may inspect the following pages and links in them : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_by_license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain I am not a lawyer and I can not comment on your possible decisions . My suggestion would be to study related laws in your country before making software available to public because some companies may not allow employees to disclose any software whether they write themselves without getting any support form their employers . There is no any relationship between programming language used and the license kind selected . License is the terms of use of the disclosed sources by the others . Another concept is Copyrights . You can only license a source which its copyright is exactly belongs to you . In some countries specifying a copyright on a work actually copyrighted by another entity may induce a legal penalty . For me , the best license is BSD-style licenses because recipients of software may use them in open and closed source applications . Since licenses like GPL and LGPL Version 3 requires disclosure of linked main programs , they can not be used in closed source applications . Therefore , any commercial entity can not use them and would NOT support them . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose any rights to it whatsoever. I don't think the language makes any difference. Basically, the BSD license is OK if you don't mind others taking the code, modifying it and distributing binaries without making the modified source available. If you don't like the last part, consider the GPL. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote: On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose any rights to it whatsoever. Public Domain does NOT invalidate Copyright : The owner of the work is the copyright holder . Public Domain is a license kind which means that there is no any condition on the usage . For example , BSD-style licenses generally are mentioned as 2-clause ( conditions ) , 3-clause ( conditions ) , etc. . Public Domain license means Zero-clause license . I don't think the language makes any difference. Basically, the BSD license is OK if you don't mind others taking the code, modifying it and distributing binaries without making the modified source available. If you don't like the last part, consider the GPL. Language and used libraries sometimes may cause problems for the users of the sources when they want to distribute executables . For example , if a BSD-style licensed source uses GPL parts as called procedures , NOT the users of the both sources have any restriction , but when executable is distributed to others , BSD-style licensed sources also should be distributed due to GPL conditions although BSD-styled licensed part itself does not require distribution . My opinion is that most restrictive license is GPL although it is claimed that it gives freedom to users to get the source and modify it when they need . One point is forgotten or ignored : A BSD-style licensed source is also available from its originators whether it is distributed by its users or not . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote: I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose any rights to it whatsoever. Public Domain does NOT invalidate Copyright : The owner of the work is the copyright holder . Public Domain is a license kind which means that there is no any condition on the usage . For example , BSD-style licenses generally are mentioned as 2-clause ( conditions ) , 3-clause ( conditions ) , etc. . Public Domain license means Zero-clause license . Giving advice like this on an international list is practically an exercise in futility, as there's pretty much a 100% chance that what you're saying is completely wrong in at least one country (and, yes, that goes for everything I say below too :-). However, in some places, public domain does indeed mean that there is no copyright on it. It is my understanding that in some countries it is difficult, if not impossible, to disclaim copyright, so you can't put your own works into the public domain. Public Domain license is conflating copyrights and licenses, which while they interact, are not at all the same thing. In fairness I will grant that this is a common usage, despite the fact that some of us deplore its imprecision. My suggestion to the OP: 1) Make sure your employer (if any) doesn't have rules on this that you wish to follow, 2) Pick a license that appeals to you, 3a) If the software isn't important enough or valuable enough that you see hiring a lawyer if somebody violates your license, you're done, as so long as the license expresses what you'd prefer people to do, it really doesn't matter much whether or not you theoretically could enforce it, 3b) If this is valuable software, see a lawyer *before* you publish the software, preferably one who understands intellectual property *and* the various licenses that are available for free software. Do NOT depend on free advice from amateurs such as myself. Frankly, unless you see this software as providing revenue, or being part of some grand product you're releasing in phases, your license is making a philosophical declaration that a fair percentage of honorable users will more or less honor. The costs of bringing legal action to actually enforce a license are probably completely out of line with the value of the network utilities that you want to share. -- --Jon Radel j...@radel.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:09:51AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? The first thing to determine is if any other entity might hold some interest (ownership/copyright interest) in any of it. If you were employed by someone or some institution to do the work or the work was done during time paid by those entities, then they may have an interest. If that is not the case, then the next thing to determine is if any of it should be submitted to existing OSen or Utilities as patches - bug fixes or improvements. These two may not be a conflict as many businesses will have no problem with you submitting back fixes in software you are using in their behalf. eg, for example, if you are using FreeBSD to run a system for the business and write a patch for FreeBSD while on company time that helps that business operate better, they probably will have no problem with your submitting the patch for permanent inclusion in FreeBSD. As much as possible, then, submit PRs and include the diffs that cover the fixes or improvements. Finally, if you have complete clear ownership of some unique utilities, then include license terms in the source with a requirement that the license term be included in any subsequent distributions and then submit the utilitie as a port - if it is for FreeBSD. For a reasonable idea of how to compose license terms, check out the license terms for FreeBSD on the web site. I really don't know where to submit it if it is not for FreeBSD, although there are several sites that such as SourceForge that make themselves repositories for various usefull utilities. You'd have to check with them for how to go about submitting things and what is expected in the way of support, etc. Please include well documented source and clear statements as to what the utilities do and how to use them. Writing man pages and why-to as well as how-tos is important. You don't have to worry a whole lot Good luck, jerry Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:09:51AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. The term public domain has a very specific legal meaning and, unfortunately, that meaning can actually vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For instance, while France does have a public domain, you cannot release a work into the public domain -- you must use a specific license if you want to grant open access to that work. In most jurisdictions, public domain refers to a state where one has disclaimed copyright for something or otherwise given up all copyright claims on it. Note that copyright and credit are not the same thing, however. Attribution is ethically a matter of fraud, and most jurisdictions will legally treat it as a matter of fraud as well if something is misrepresented as being written by someone other than its actual author, though some jurisdictions add additional attribution protection through copyright. It is for reason of the fact that copyright law is much more widely supported across different jurisdictions (i.e., in different countries or legal systems) than any standardized understanding of public domain that most people with any understanding of the complexities will recommend using a license rather than the public domain, even if what you want is effectively the public domain. If that's your actual goal, select a license whose terms most closely approximate the public domain as you understand it, and let that be your legally binding statement of intent (for any jurisdiction that recognizes your copyright and your licensing privilege under copyright law). I'm happy to see someone wanting to make his code available to the world, by the way. Kudos to you. If there are no competing copyright claims on any of the work (such as an employment agreement that might interfere with your sole copyright claims), I absolutely encourage you to see through your intent to open the code up. Note, however, that I am not a lawyer in *any* jurisdiction, and the above should not be considered legal advice per se. Courts of law are notoriously fickle things that, for some reason, tend to be really bad at interpreting things the way the majority of humans believe they should be interpreted. Let the buyer beware, as they say. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Have you considered choosing a license that doesn't lock what you give to the world into the realm of code? While the terms of the BSD license for code in particular are great in my opinion, the fact that they specify software source code is not so great, because sticky ambiguities can arise when someone wants to include that code in a non-software context (such as writing an article or a book that makes use of the code, including it in music lyrics, showing it in a video production of some sort, and so on). My favorite license for all purposes at present is the Open Works License, and I actually use it to license all my emails to this mailing list: http://owl.apotheon.org While I'm at it, my favorite general licensing policy is copyfree. Where strong copyright protection is the default for many countries, notably the US and much of Europe, and copyleft is the Free Software Foundation's answer to copyright as a way of turning the purpose of copyright on its head, copyfree is kind of a rejection of both copyright and copyleft. Check out the canonical explanation: http://copyfree.org/policy/ Both the BSD license and the Open Works License are copyfree licenses, as are a number of other popular and widely used licenses. I hope you get some value from my rambling. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Thomas McCauley: The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out. pgpcVb4rDivpd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Licensing
I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
Ted Mittelstaedt schrieb: - Original Message - From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries [freebsd-emulation cut from cc] On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote: The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Gábor, What you plan to do is perfectly fine under the GPL as long as (1) What you distribute is under the GPL license (2) You let people know where they can freely get the source (3) You don't take credit for work that isn't yours. Jeffrey, Kovesdan is not modifying the binaries or the sources, thus there is no need for him to GPL license his distribution - the files in his distribution already carry their own GPL license. He just needs to include all of the files, which by GPL requirement, are going to include a copies of the GPL licenses that are applied to those files, as well as instructions as to where to get the sources. He does not need to further apply some kind of 'overall' GPL license to his distribution. It's a similar issue as someone running an FTP server with GPL software on it, they are merely serving as a venue for the distribution. It's a fine point to be sure, but an important one espically as the FSF is aiming to have multiple, incompatible, versions of the GPL floating around. Ted Thanks for the answers to both of you. We just modify the packaging of the file: gzipped tarball instead of floppy images, so it will be fine to redistribute them with the pointer to the sources then. Regards, Gabor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
On Feb 25, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: Thanks for the answers to both of you. Szivesen We just modify the packaging of the file: gzipped tarball instead of floppy images, so it will be fine to redistribute them with the pointer to the sources then. Yes. As a shameless plug, there is an article about the GPL that appeared in Alaplap in 1994 titled Van aki szabadon szereti (Some like it free) by me and translated from English to Hungarian by Horlai Janos. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact reference. Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberghttp://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
- Original Message - From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries [freebsd-emulation cut from cc] On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote: The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Gábor, What you plan to do is perfectly fine under the GPL as long as (1) What you distribute is under the GPL license (2) You let people know where they can freely get the source (3) You don't take credit for work that isn't yours. Jeffrey, Kovesdan is not modifying the binaries or the sources, thus there is no need for him to GPL license his distribution - the files in his distribution already carry their own GPL license. He just needs to include all of the files, which by GPL requirement, are going to include a copies of the GPL licenses that are applied to those files, as well as instructions as to where to get the sources. He does not need to further apply some kind of 'overall' GPL license to his distribution. It's a similar issue as someone running an FTP server with GPL software on it, they are merely serving as a venue for the distribution. It's a fine point to be sure, but an important one espically as the FSF is aiming to have multiple, incompatible, versions of the GPL floating around. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
Hi Folks, we have a shiny new linux_base based on the Slackware distribution in ports/104680. The only problem is with this, that Slackware people distribute some binaries in ext2fs floppy images. We would like to avoid using such, because that would need some kernel module trick in the port and that is very difficult to handle. The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Thanks in advance, Gabor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
[freebsd-emulation cut from cc] On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote: The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Gábor, What you plan to do is perfectly fine under the GPL as long as (1) What you distribute is under the GPL license (2) You let people know where they can freely get the source (3) You don't take credit for work that isn't yours. Szervusz, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberghttp://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On 06/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a working system. That was explained below. You might not like the reasons, or agree with them, but your claim that the FreeBSD manpages do not say anything about the need for firmware is obviously mistaken. How is the claim obviously mistaken if the man-page DO NOT say what's the reason that the firmware must be downloaded from a web-site? There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. Yes, regulatory bodies, of cause, table specific requirements that must be satisfied by systems that utilise RF, i.e. the manufacturer must make reasonable attempt to prevent users from using non-permitted frequencies. Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with the FCC, however. That's right. Intel permits you to redistribute their firmware under the terms of their license. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware under a non-OSS-friendly licence? The BSD license and all other OSS-friendly licenses permit the user to modify the software and redistribute that modified version as a derivative work. A modified version of the firmware has not received FCC certification-- see Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, section 15 in general, and specificly: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/47cfr15_05.html Sec. 15.21 Information to user. The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment. Right, this means a notice on the device or supporting documentation. It does not require a legal term in the firmware's licence. Sec. 15.202 Certified operating frequency range. Client devices that operate in a master/client network may be certified if they have the capability of operating outside permissible part 15 frequency bands, provided they operate on only permissible part 15 frequencies under the control of the master device with which they communicate. Master devices marketed within the United States must be limited to operation on permissible part 15 frequencies. Client devices that can also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a master device. Also see: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unauthorizedradio.html Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio without a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Thus, generally, in order to use or operate a radio station, the Communications Act requires that you first obtain a license by the FCC. However, there are certain limited exceptions. For example, the FCC has provided blanket authorization to operators of Citizens Band (CB) radios, radio control stations, domestic ship and aircraft radios and certain other types of devices. This blanket authorization means that operators of these radio facilities are not required to have individual station licenses. Operators are required to operate their
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a working system. That was explained below. You might not like the reasons, or agree with them, but your claim that the FreeBSD manpages do not say anything about the need for firmware is obviously mistaken. There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. Yes, regulatory bodies, of cause, table specific requirements that must be satisfied by systems that utilise RF, i.e. the manufacturer must make reasonable attempt to prevent users from using non-permitted frequencies. Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with the FCC, however. That's right. Intel permits you to redistribute their firmware under the terms of their license. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware under a non-OSS-friendly licence? The BSD license and all other OSS-friendly licenses permit the user to modify the software and redistribute that modified version as a derivative work. A modified version of the firmware has not received FCC certification-- see Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, section 15 in general, and specificly: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/47cfr15_05.html Sec. 15.21 Information to user. The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment. Sec. 15.202 Certified operating frequency range. Client devices that operate in a master/client network may be certified if they have the capability of operating outside permissible part 15 frequency bands, provided they operate on only permissible part 15 frequencies under the control of the master device with which they communicate. Master devices marketed within the United States must be limited to operation on permissible part 15 frequencies. Client devices that can also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a master device. Also see: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unauthorizedradio.html Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the “use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio” without a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Thus, generally, in order to use or operate a radio station, the Communications Act requires that you first obtain a license by the FCC. However, there are certain limited exceptions. For example, the FCC has provided blanket authorization to operators of Citizens Band (CB) radios, radio control stations, domestic ship and aircraft radios and certain other types of devices. This blanket authorization means that operators of these radio facilities are not required to have individual station licenses. Operators are required to operate their stations in a manner consistent with the FCC’s operational and technical rules for those services. Failure to do so could be considered an unauthorized operation. Again, is there some part of this that is unclear or which you fail to understand? Yes, precicely, I don't understand why you think FCC
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: My acquaintance with Unix started with FreeBSD, which I used for quite a while before discovering OpenBSD. I now mostly use OpenBSD, and I was wondering of how many FreeBSD users are aware about the licensing restrictions of Intel Pro Wireless family of wireless adapters? I would imagine that all FreeBSD users who are using the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors are familiar with the license, given that they have to agree to the license in order to get the adaptor working. Even someone like me who doesn't have one is aware of the license. Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? If you are curious as to why things are the way they are, I suggest that you check the problems that are described in the misc@openbsd.org mailing list, and contact Intel people and say what you think about their user-unfriendly policy in regards to Intel Pro Wireless firmwares, which are REQUIRED to be loaded from the OS before the device functions, i.e. the OS developers must be allowed to freely distribute the firmware in order for the devices to work out-of-the-box. There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. Again, is there some part of this that is unclear or which you fail to understand? For some recent information about Intel being an Open Source Fraud, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd- miscm=115960734026283w=2. The firmware license for these devices has never been submitted to the OSI board for approval as an Open Source license, and I have never seen Intel claim that this license is an Open Source license. It might suit OpenBSD's advocacy purposes to deliberately misrepresent Intel's position, but doing so is unfair and is not especially helpful to the FreeBSD community, which does have somewhat decent relations with vendors like Intel, Lucent, Aironet, Broadcomm, and so forth. As to the point raised above, the firmware license actually does permit an individual user, including an OS developer, to copy and redistribute the software to others, so long as the recepient agrees to the license terms: LICENSE. You may copy and use the Software, subject to these conditions: 1. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. 2. You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute or transfer any part of the Software except as provided in this Agreement, and you agree to prevent unauthorized copying of the Software. 3. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. 4. You may not sublicense the Software. 5. The Software may contain the software or other property of third party suppliers. [ ... ] You may transfer the Software only if a copy of this license accompanies the Software and the recipient agrees to be fully bound by these terms. If a project such as OpenBSD wishes to redistribute the software, then it would probably be considered an Independent Software Vendor, and again the firmware license grants permission to redistribute the Intel Pro Wireless software, under the following terms: For OEMs, IHVs, and ISVs: LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Intel grants to you a nonexclusive, nontransferable, worldwide, fully paid-up license under Intel's copyrights to: (i) copy the Software internally for your own development and maintenance purposes; (ii) copy and distribute
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a working system. If you are curious as to why things are the way they are, I suggest that you check the problems that are described in the misc@openbsd.org mailing list, and contact Intel people and say what you think about their user-unfriendly policy in regards to Intel Pro Wireless firmwares, which are REQUIRED to be loaded from the OS before the device functions, i.e. the OS developers must be allowed to freely distribute the firmware in order for the devices to work out-of-the-box. There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. Yes, regulatory bodies, of cause, table specific requirements that must be satisfied by systems that utilise RF, i.e. the manufacturer must make reasonable attempt to prevent users from using non-permitted frequencies. Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with the FCC, however. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware under a non-OSS-friendly licence? Again, is there some part of this that is unclear or which you fail to understand? Yes, precicely, I don't understand why you think FCC requires Intel to not release the firmware under a BSD-like licence. For some recent information about Intel being an Open Source Fraud, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd- miscm=115960734026283w=2. The firmware license for these devices has never been submitted to the OSI board for approval as an Open Source license, and I have never seen Intel claim that this license is an Open Source license. It might suit OpenBSD's advocacy purposes to deliberately misrepresent Intel's position, but doing so is unfair and is not especially helpful to the FreeBSD community, which does have somewhat decent relations with vendors like Intel, Lucent, Aironet, Broadcomm, and so forth. As to the point raised above, the firmware license actually does permit an individual user, including an OS developer, to copy and redistribute the software to others, so long as the recepient agrees to the license terms: LICENSE. You may copy and use the Software, subject to these conditions: 1. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. So if I don't have an Intel Wireless in the system, is it still legal to have the firmware in my system files? 2. You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute or transfer any part of the Software except as provided in this Agreement, and you agree to prevent unauthorized copying of the Software. 3. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. What's exactly the purpose of this term, if reverse engineering is permitted under many jurisdictions? Is it just to scare potentional reverse-engineers? 4. You may not sublicense the Software. 5. The Software may contain the software or other property of third party suppliers. [ ... ] You may transfer the Software only if a copy of this license accompanies the Software and the recipient agrees to be fully bound by these terms. If a project such as OpenBSD wishes to redistribute the software, then it would probably be considered an Independent Software Vendor, and again the
ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
Hi, My acquaintance with Unix started with FreeBSD, which I used for quite a while before discovering OpenBSD. I now mostly use OpenBSD, and I was wondering of how many FreeBSD users are aware about the licensing restrictions of Intel Pro Wireless family of wireless adapters? Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi If you are curious as to why things are the way they are, I suggest that you check the problems that are described in the misc@openbsd.org mailing list, and contact Intel people and say what you think about their user-unfriendly policy in regards to Intel Pro Wireless firmwares, which are REQUIRED to be loaded from the OS before the device functions, i.e. the OS developers must be allowed to freely distribute the firmware in order for the devices to work out-of-the-box. For some recent information about Intel being an Open Source Fraud, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=115960734026283w=2. Cheers, Constantine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Implementing software licensing in FreeBSD
Setting aside opinions on copy protection and licensing, suppose I wanted to implement such a scheme. The key itself might be a network license, or an encrypted file containing license info and system-specific info. But the real issue is how to protect the code that accesses the key. I know that 'wrappers' don't have much of an application in Unix, and are actually impractical. But what techniques could be implemented within a library or archive that would make it difficult for someone to trace the algorithm and/or make changes to the code to remove the protection checks? jm -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Implementing software licensing in FreeBSD
On 10/12/05, Jonathon McKitrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Setting aside opinions on copy protection and licensing, suppose I wanted to implement such a scheme. The key itself might be a network license, or an encrypted file containing license info and system-specific info. But the real issue is how to protect the code that accesses the key. I know that 'wrappers' don't have much of an application in Unix, and are actually impractical. But what techniques could be implemented within a library or archive that would make it difficult for someone to trace the algorithm and/or make changes to the code to remove the protection checks? jm -- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] No matter what the platform is, one of the most effective tricks is to check different checksums (CRC, MD5, SHA256...) of different parts of different binaries at different (random) points by inline functions. Failure to verify a binary integrity should lead to immediate program termination. I don't see a single reason for this question being asked here. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Implementing software licensing in FreeBSD
On Wednesday 12 October 2005 05:42 am, Jonathon McKitrick wrote: But what techniques could be implemented within a library or archive that would make it difficult for someone to trace the algorithm and/or make changes to the code to remove the protection checks? There is none. The closest possibility is obfuscating the code that verifies the license keys and calling that code pervasively throughout your program. Of course, this will make your program much more complex, fragile, and resource-intensive, and some guy who's been cracking protected software for 20 years will snip out your patch and release a faster, more robust version of your program. Forget the licensing issues. Copy protection will never do as it's intended. Please, seriously, dig back into its history of failure and see why nothing good can come of this. -- Kirk Strauser pgpNtwI4CmxK0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. The derivative work as a whole must be released under the terms of the GPL because of this. The parts of the derivative work which originally were under that other license remain available under that other license alone, just as the parts which originally were under the GPL remain available under the GPL, alone. Nothing in the GPL forces the other code by itself to be under the GPL. How could that possibly be the case? [1] Many simple permissive licenses are GPL-miscable, including the BSDL and MIT/X11 licenses. See: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses You can even link GPL'ed code with proprietary code, but the result cannot be redistributed per GPL #7. Such a combination can still be used by you as an individual, because GPL #0 states: The act of running the Program is not restricted -- -Chuck [1]: You can choose to use any license you want for original code that you've written. Software licenses apply to the code which is under that license, and to derivative works (assuming the license permits such to be created); conversely, a license does not apply to code which is not under that license. Unless you are the author, or unless the author grants permission for you to relicense the original source code, you do not have the right to take BSD-licensed code and put it under the GPL just because you feel like doing so, or just because you've linked the original program against (eg) GNU readline. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
of 3rd party code under GPL goes beyond the scope and applicability of the GPL as far as I can tell. That's what this is about. Do they really require that or was it just stated in a somewhat mangled way. As far as binding, if it links with the program, then it's covered under the GPL. Yes. I'm not disputing that at all. The GPL allows me to write something based on a GPL piece of code and release *my* stuff as BSDL (and likely with a notice about licensing for the next guy). The GPL does not even permit any stipulation on which license a 3rd party may use. I'm sure that's a conscious decision. The GPL code is protected already as it is. I think you're seriously confused on something. The GPL does require that derivative works (including programs linked to GPL libraries) be distributed under the GPL. It does NOT require that the GPL be the sole license applicable to that code. ABIDING to the GPL not UNDER the GPL itself (the 3rd party program). In essence, you're releasing any BSDL code linked with Qt under the GPL and there's nothing you can do to stop this. Except not releasing but I didn't dispute this. Well, they had the QPL before which was slightly different but for us practically the same. Thing is, I don't see why this is a big deal. The BSDL forces you to release it under the GPL as well. The BSDL-granted rights are a superset of the GPL-granted rights, and according to the BSDL license I can redistribute any BSDL code under any license I want, whether that be a restrictive EULA (like with Microsoft's ftp) or the GPL. You are never allowed to relicense anything. I think I've gone and confused myself. But my point is that no BSDL code will be found to be infringing on the GPL by not being distributable, so why does this even matter? It matters if I write code and I want to give away that code on MY terms, not the FSF's terms. That code only of course, we agree on that. Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck Swiger Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:47 AM To: Danny Pansters Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow restrictions on the field of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone Chuck, The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders right to control how his work is used trumps anything else. What this means is that if you have a case where someone takes the GPL license and rewrites it to cover their work, what a court is going to rule is that while the FSF may have infringement grounds for suing the person for modifying the GPL, that still does not affect the copyright status of the work under the modified GPL. What the person would be required to do is cease infringing the GPL which means they would have to strike all references to the name GPL from their modified license, and probably significantly change sentences in it so that it's not a verbatim copy, but a 1st year legal student could do that. They would not be barred from creating TERMS that are mostly similar to the GPL's terms, yet containing additional un-GPL-like restrictions. This also means that if you happened to be using software under this modified GPL license, you would have no grounds for a defence of well your honor his license was supposed to be less restrictive because he says it's GPL and the GPL is less restrictive than what his license terms are, so I just followed the GPL terms, not his modified terms Now, there IS one loophole in the Qt modified GPL license. That is, you could use a program like emacs to write a C++ program that calls Qt classes. You could then distribute this program in source form, with a commercial or restrictive license, despite the fact that Trolltech's wording is: By using this version of Qt/QSA, you agree to and legally you would not be infringing. Any user that compiled your program with Qt would be infringing. However, if you used QtDesigner or any of that to write your C++ program, your source would be subject to the Qt license restrictions. Of course, if you removed references in your source to Qt Designer, it would be impossible for TrollTech to prove that you used it, rather than Emacs, to write your source, but that's a side issue. ;-) Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [ ... ] The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders right to control how his work is used trumps anything else. This generalization is correct, within certain important limits: a copyright right holder can put pretty much any license terms they want onto something. This generalization is also wrong: lots of licenses contain terms which are not enforcable, and there exist considerations which trump copyright law. For exmaple, if you write a program and distribute it under a license which says that anyone who uses your software must kill Ted's mother-in-law, one would discover that your mother-in-law's right to life trumps this license. Plenty of licenses claim that the user may only make one archival or backup copy of the software. Fair use (here in the US) and data retention requirements (here and elsewhere) permit people to take as many backups as they need to. This sort of thing happens often enough that non-trivial software licenses expect that some of their terms may be found to be unenforcable, leading to clauses such as: If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. (GPL clause #7) [ ... ] Now, there IS one loophole in the Qt modified GPL license. That is, you could use a program like emacs to write a C++ program that calls Qt classes. You could then distribute this program in source form, with a commercial or restrictive license, despite the fact that Trolltech's wording is: By using this version of Qt/QSA, you agree to and legally you would not be infringing. Of course you could. In fact, you could even release a binary version of the program which dynamicly loaded the Qt library if present, and still not be infringing, so long as your code is seperate and independent of Qt. This is precisely what the proprietary video drivers from ATI and nVidia for Linux do. ATI and nVidia cannot redistribute a Linux kernel plus their drivers, since that combination would violate GPL #7, but so long as they do not redistribute GPL'ed code, they are not subject to the terms of the GPL. Any user that compiled your program with Qt would be infringing. If the user compiled the program *and* redistributed a binary containing both that software and Qt, it would be infringing. But if the end-user simply uses the combination without redistributing it, then there is no infringement. See GPL clause #0 just below (qv). However, if you used QtDesigner or any of that to write your C++ program, your source would be subject to the Qt license restrictions. The output of a tool like an editor is generally not covered by the license which applies to the tool itself: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. (GPL #0) Microsoft doesn't own the Word or Excel documents you might create using Office, and TrollTech doesn't own the software you might create using QtDesigner. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
snipped I'd like to say that my mail to trolltech was before yours and I haven't had an answer yet save for an automated reply. Perhaps I'm not important enough :) I'm not sure if I want this to go on the list (and archive) but this is what I sent them, and yes, I was voicing concern but I don't think I got abusive or impolite at any point. If anything I'm directly pointing out where problems may/will arise (after re-reading I thought there's nothing wrong copying it to the list): - LIcensing of new QT4 From: Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 29/06/05 13:02 Hi there, congratulations with the new QT. But there was something on your download page where the licensing is explained that made me very worried. I use and work on FreeBSD and there is no way I'm going to write code (for FreeBSD/KDE and in most cases useless for Linux) that is forced to become GPL because it uses QT. And I don't think you can enforce relicensing like that. See, if I release code under BSDL that uses (but not changes) any GPL'd QT code I am abiding to the GPL. So is this situation still the same and is the wording on the webpage a bit mangled, or do you really mean that any and all code (including code under other open source licenses from people external to QT) must be released under GPL if it use QT? Please give me a clear answer on this, because for *BSD people this means a lot and we'd need to have a long hard talk about QT if indeed everything is forced into GPL. I'm working on a TV app for FreeBSD using PyQt and now I'm wondering if I should just keep it to myself. That can't be the intention of the licensing. Thanks, Danny Pansters -- They're still not clear about this as far as I can tell. It's interesting that what you said about relicensing in a GPL context (that this may not be a requirement if to be GPL compliant/compatible) was also the first thing that came to my mind. It may even void their GPL based license if taken to the letter. I fact that would be likely. I'll be satisfied if they make a statement about this or something alike, but I do agree with you that a requirement to relicensing while complying with gpl would not be possible if abiding to gpl themselves. Again, thanks, you clearly know what this stuff (from a *bsd perspective) is about, unlike others even if they *gasp* wrote a book. I dunno I feel somewhat silly about persuing this, but I also feel that if no one does we might end up with a dreadful deal etched in stone and that would be bye bye qt/kde development specifically for *BSD and released as such. That would very much hinder newcomers or veterans alike who want to enhance our desktop (can you say pc-bsd which adapted a GPL license based on exactly this presumable FUD!) Anayway I apreciate your input and effords talking with the Trolls. Thanks. Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Sorry for top posting... The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as in might be void. What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the case when I use python bindings instead of C++ and (real) binding? And what about Use of the Program. A toolkit has a clear Use. And there we have the LGPL case all over again. Personally I wouldn't mind if the QPL came back to life. For *BSD it was a workable solution. On Friday 1 July 2005 04:44, Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. No. It's not about being licensed GPL. That allows for parts being BSDL. It's about having to relicense BSDL - GPL and we believe that can not be enforcable (at least not when abiding to GPL) Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
On 6/30/05, Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for top posting... The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as in might be void. What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the case when I use python bindings instead of C++ and (real) binding? And what about Use of the Program. A toolkit has a clear Use. And there we have the LGPL case all over again. Personally I wouldn't mind if the QPL came back to life. For *BSD it was a workable solution. On Friday 1 July 2005 04:44, Josh Ockert wrote: I'm not so sure you guys have this right. No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2: b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. This very specifically includes works which use libraries; use of libraries with non-GPL software is to be done with the LGPL. That's why the first L in LGPL used to stand for Library. Now it stands for Lesser, because RMS wants to discourage its use; he has in fact claimed that many projects have been made open source because they wanted to use the readline library: The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline (see http://software.newsforge.com/software/04/07/15/163208.shtml). The GPL clarifies this point: This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. While this only explicitly refers to proprietary licenses, other open source licenses are also excluded because the 'viral' part of the GPL requires that they be distributed under the terms of this License (meaning the GPL). I believe where the confusion comes in is here: The QT Public License. It allowed redistribution of any linked work under any Open Source license. To wit: 6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements: (a) You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of these items are also able to receive and use the complete machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the costs of data transfer. (b) You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to re-distribute to anyone they choose. (c) If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one. You can read a whole flamewar on the Debian lists from when the QPL was first coming out: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/03/msg00064.html If QT4 is licensed exclusively under GPL I do not believe that BSDL software can continue to be written with it without exploiting some kind of legal loophole. I'd need to read the GPL in more detail before giving my opinion. Please note that I'm not a licensed lawyer, just a law geek applying to law school and finishing up his senior year in undergrad; take my opinion with a grain of salt. But please do look up the references, and if you have doubts, read the BSDL, the QPL, the GPL, and the LGPL, and any clarifying text thereon. No. It's not about being licensed GPL. That allows for parts being BSDL. It's about having to relicense BSDL - GPL and we believe that can not be enforcable (at least not when abiding to GPL) Cheers, Dan I don't really see the contradiction in the GPL. Regardless of whether it's a law or a license, it's binding. Nothing else gives you the right to use the Qt libraries. As far as binding, if it links with the program, then it's covered under the GPL. I think you're seriously confused on something. The GPL does require that derivative works (including programs linked to GPL libraries) be distributed under the GPL. It does NOT require that the GPL
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
PS - Not that I'm claiming that BSD is a total giveaway, but as long as the required notices are intact, there's nothing wrong with BSDL code being imported to GPL code. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Folks, I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). I think this should be discussed. I already sent the Trolls an email asking for clarification about this, or rather if it's as bad as it seems for us. Perhaps they just overlooked the *BSDs... Dan PS keep your flames to yourselves. This is serious. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
On Wednesday 29 June 2005 12:30, Danny Pansters wrote: Folks, I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). I don't see what you are getting at. As I read it, they give an informal informational precis of what the GPL is, and then say: This is because the Open Source versions of our software are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL license. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Danny Pansters wrote: I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). TrollTech is playing the same type of game that MySQL is doing. If you write your own program, and use it with QT which results in a derivative work, then you may not redistribute your program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be relicensed under the GPL, it just requires that code to be under a GPL-miscable license. The new BSDL (ie, without the advertizing clause) is fine. Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow restrictions on the field of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Hey Chuck, thanks for answering. On Wednesday 29 June 2005 16:47, Chuck Swiger wrote: Danny Pansters wrote: I don't want to scare anyone but today QT4 was released and their web page (http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html) specifically states several times that if using the free version one is required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative). TrollTech is playing the same type of game that MySQL is doing. If you write your own program, and use it with QT which results in a derivative work, then you may not redistribute your program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be relicensed under the GPL, it just requires that code to be under a GPL-miscable license. The new BSDL (ie, without the advertizing clause) is fine. But they specifically state it: (I) Add a notice to your program that it is GPL licensed when it runs This is because the Open Source versions of our software are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL license. Using the Open Source Edition means you agree that the source of the software you write also will be published according to this license. on their download page: http://www.trolltech.com/download/opensource.html Their licensing page (I just noted) OTOH, has: (II) If you wish to use the Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community in accordance with the GPL when your application is distributed. That's on http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/opensource.html The two are obviously different (the latter being the same as for qt3-gpl). Abiding to and applying a licence are not the same. And that's what get's mangled up (perhaps accidentally). Also note that the Open Source Definition does not allow restrictions on the field of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it. Yeah but if the letter of (I) is to be followed we'd be barred from releasing any qt/kde desktop enhancing stuff for *BSD if we'd insist on releasing that code (our own) on our own license terms (to be expected) which complies with what GPL asks of us. Hence I'm saying that (I) would go a lot further than GPL requirements. Cheers, Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Danny Pansters wrote: Hey Chuck, thanks for answering. No problem. (I'm not completely convinced this thread belongs on freebsd-questions, but I don't know where else to move it to. :-) Anyway, I contacted someone at TrollTech with pretty much what I said in my last email, and got a positive response that they would look into this. My impression is that their download page reflects a somewhat clumsy explanation of what the GPL requires for derivative works, rather than an attempt by TrollTech to force other people to use the GPL. -- -Chuck From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance... In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ ... ] If one were to write your own program, and use it with QT in a fashion which results in a derivative work, then one may not redistribute the program without complying with the terms of the GPL. Exactly. Deriving from Qt and QSA is all you do when you use it. However, nothing in the GPL requires someone else's code to be relicensed under the GPL, it simply requires that code to be under a GPL-miscable license. For instance, the new BSDL (ie, without the advertizing clause) is fine, as is the MIT/X11 license and others. We don't require this either: Make the complete source code of your program available to all end users Allow all users to re-use, modify and re-distribute the code Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use and re-distribution Add a notice to your program that it is GPL licensed when it runs When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible license (which is what we mean when we says GPL licensed). [ ... ] -- and - Subject: Re: [Issue N77189] QT4 Open Source compliance... In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The specific problem with OSD-compliance is this phrase: Give up your right to demand compensation for re-use Hello Chuck, thanks for clarifying, now I know what you are commenting on. People can and do sell GPL'ed software all of the time. People can and do sell services or charge usage fees for systems which use GPL'ed software. What you cannot do with GPL'ed software is prevent someone you've sold the software to from giving it away for free, if they so choose. And once you've redistributed the software (in either source or binary form), you must also make the complete source code available for free. I think you have a point, I'll pass this on to our legal department for review. When you have end users, then you obviously redistributed it. Since the GPL is viral, you have to license under the GPL or a compatible license (which is what we mean when we says GPL licensed). The GPL is reciprocal or copyleft, yes. I would suggest there is a significant difference between you must use a GPL-compatible license if you redistribute a binary containing Qt and you must license your code under the GPL. I think the GPL is quite fuzzy when it comes to inhouse development. But you are right, development itself does not constitute an act relevant for the GPL. I was oversimpifying :) Regards, Volker -- Volker Hilsheimer, Support Manager Trolltech AS, Waldemar Thranes gate 98, NO-0175 Oslo, Norway ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 11:16 am, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Compared to other types of hardware, the support for wireless cards is lacking on *BSD because many vendors don't provide documentation or the cards require the upload of a binary firmware image that, absurdly as it sounds, may not be redistributed. Well, some people are working on improving this situation step by step and you can help by writing to the hardware vendors. Specifically, there already is a FreeBSD 5.x driver for the Texas Instruments ACX100 802.11b chipset (DLink DWL-520+, DWL-650+, and others), which is currently maintained externally: http://wlan.kewl.org/modules/mantis/main_page.php However, a firmware binary blob must be uploaded to the card, and since TI doesn't allow redistribution it can't be included with the driver, rendering it useless. mucho snippo A few comments/questions: 1) The only driver I've tried is: http://acx100.sourceforge.net/ It worked pretty well for me. As I recall there is a script to download the firmware - I don't recall from where it was d/l, but I don't remember having to check off any license agreement forms during the process. Pretty painless... I never realized it was an issue 'til I saw your post. 2) Wouldn't voting with your pocketbook be more persuasive than whining? I recently bought two WiFI cards that use the Prism chipset (seattlewireless.net) 'cause they've got better support in the systems I use. This purchase represents a loss for TI the mfrs who buy their ACX100 chips, and a gain for Intersil and their customers. The free market is pretty effective at sorting these things out. 3) As far as 'activism' goes, I think you and the other merry men would be heard much more clearly if you each bought a single share of TI stock (it's real cheap right now :) and used your status as shareholders to submit motions or resolutions to TI's Board of Directors. Better yet, attend the annual shareholder's meeting, and let your voices be heard! Good Luck, Jay ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing
On Sunday, 31. October 2004 09:51, Jay Moore wrote: 2) Wouldn't voting with your pocketbook be more persuasive than whining? I recently bought two WiFI cards that use the Prism chipset (seattlewireless.net) 'cause they've got better support in the systems I use. This purchase represents a loss for TI the mfrs who buy their ACX100 chips, and a gain for Intersil and their customers. The free market is pretty effective at sorting these things out. It's obviously not, because (as a !Windows user) your pocketbook isn't even registered for voting. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org pgpZ7SeIFdw0M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing
On Sunday 31 October 2004 07:41 am, Michael Nottebrock wrote: 2) Wouldn't voting with your pocketbook be more persuasive than whining? I recently bought two WiFI cards that use the Prism chipset (seattlewireless.net) 'cause they've got better support in the systems I use. This purchase represents a loss for TI the mfrs who buy their ACX100 chips, and a gain for Intersil and their customers. The free market is pretty effective at sorting these things out. It's obviously not, because (as a !Windows user) your pocketbook isn't even registered for voting. Oh yes it is... my vote may go for Ralph Nader, but it's still a vote! And I think you may under-estimate just how many people and organizations are using open source and/or free software. Respectfully, Jay ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing
On Sunday, 31. October 2004 18:21, Jay Moore wrote: And I think you may under-estimate just how many people and organizations are using open source and/or free software. No, it doesn't work that way. You as a *BSD/Linux user were never meant to purchase a $40 wireless NIC with a TI chipset that says software requirements: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP on the box or a $1399 OEM notebook with a builtin TI chipset that comes with Windows XP Home Edition. If you do, it's your problem, and if you don't, your purchase won't be missed by anyone. -- ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org pgpqSVAwHSEYJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ACX100 Firmware Licensing
On Sunday 31 October 2004 11:36 am, Michael Nottebrock wrote: And I think you may under-estimate just how many people and organizations are using open source and/or free software. No, it doesn't work that way. You as a *BSD/Linux user were never meant to purchase a $40 wireless NIC with a TI chipset that says software requirements: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP on the box or a $1399 OEM notebook with a builtin TI chipset that comes with Windows XP Home Edition. If you do, it's your problem, and if you don't, your purchase won't be missed by anyone. Well join the whiners then, Michael. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ACX100 Firmware Licensing
Compared to other types of hardware, the support for wireless cards is lacking on *BSD because many vendors don't provide documentation or the cards require the upload of a binary firmware image that, absurdly as it sounds, may not be redistributed. Well, some people are working on improving this situation step by step and you can help by writing to the hardware vendors. Specifically, there already is a FreeBSD 5.x driver for the Texas Instruments ACX100 802.11b chipset (DLink DWL-520+, DWL-650+, and others), which is currently maintained externally: http://wlan.kewl.org/modules/mantis/main_page.php However, a firmware binary blob must be uploaded to the card, and since TI doesn't allow redistribution it can't be included with the driver, rendering it useless. THIS CONCERNS ALL OPEN SOURCE OPERATING SYSTEMS: FreeBSD, the other BSDs, Linux, you name it. OpenBSD's Ryan McBride has tried to contact TI about this but has been ignored and now asks the user community for assistance. Please contact the people at Texas Instruments by email or phone and ask them to enable us to provide a useful driver. Time and again it has been shown that vendors will be swayed if the user community expresses its interest vocally enough. Here is a list of contacts scrounged together from various sources: Bill Carney [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 707 521 3069 Mr Taketo Fukui [EMAIL PROTECTED] 81-3-4331-2060 Dr John T Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 707 284 2224 Mr Srikanth Gummadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 707 284 2209 Dr Srinath Hosur [EMAIL PROTECTED] (214) 480-4432 Dr Jie Liang [EMAIL PROTECTED] (214) 480-4105 Mr Joe Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 858 646 3358 Mr Lior Ophir [EMAIL PROTECTED] (972) 9 970-6542 Dr Stephen Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] (510) 841-8315 Mr Yoram Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] (408) 965-2196 Tim Riker [EMAIL PROTECTED] DuVal, Mary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anand Dabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anand G. Dabak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tim Schmidl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sean Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Srikanth Gummadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Srinath Hosur [EMAIL PROTECTED] Muhammad Ikram [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joseph Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lior Ophir [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stephen Pope [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian Sherlock [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manoneet Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Richar Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hirohisa Yamaguchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message from Ryan McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Ryan McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ACX100 Firmware Licensing Greetings Since I do not know which one of you to contact, I am contacting all of you in the hopes that someone can redirect me to the responsible party who can help me. I am contacting on behalf of the open source operating system called OpenBSD, but the message applies to all of the other open source operating systems (Linux, the other BSD's, etc). In open source operating systems the support for some 802.11 devices, drivers such as TIs ACX100 chip, is lagging because the vendors are taking rather restrictive approaches regarding their technology. We have begun working on a driver for this chip, but it will be crippled in our operating system due to the absence of a freely available firmware image. Our policy is as follows: We will include a firmware from a vendor if it is freely redistributable. It can be a binary blob of data. It must be copyrighted, of course, but that is in the interest of the vendor. Our user community is very compatibility driven in their purchasing decisions; they seek out the components that are stable and well supported, and it is not the ACX100 varients that they will select. Even if a free driver exists, they will avoid these cards since the firmware is not included in the operating system, so you are selling fewer cards than you could. I don't know if the open source operating systems are rising as much some of the press leads us to believe, but if they are, you can no longer afford to turn your back on a fickle and technically savvy community. In the past, vendors have gotten by because there were no options, but now that some have begun opening up with freely licensed firmware and usable technical documentation, open source users have a choice, and they will be chosing the best supported cards, ie those from vendors who cooperate with the open source projects. There is another threat to your business model of remaining closed. Some vendors like RealTek and Ralink have come out with fully documented chipsets. Even Intel's Centrino-associated chipsets are now fully documented, and Cisco's remain documented. And of course we fully support the old Lucent, Prism, and Symbol devices. Texas Instruments can avoid getting sidelined in the open source market, by working with us to release the firmware in a way we can use it. Other companies that have met with the same firmware choices? Qlogic ISP scsi/fiberchannel PCI cards 3com Ethernet cards that do IPSEC offloading Adaptec Intel 100mbit card firmware upgrades for bugs NCR for their scsi products
licensing
Quick question I'm not sure about the license that FreeBSD falls under. Are we allowed to modify code (specifically /sbin/natd) and resell it commercially as part of a product?? Secondly, natd runs via divert in usermode. Is there something similar in kernel mode? Kernelmode will obviously operate allot faster than usermode... -- me ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: licensing]
I omitted sending this reply to Chris to the list by mistake. Please correct me if I am wrong. ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 11:06, Chris Knipe wrote: Quick question I'm not sure about the license that FreeBSD falls under. Are we allowed to modify code (specifically /sbin/natd) and resell it commercially as part of a product?? Secondly, natd runs via divert in usermode. Is there something similar in kernel mode? Kernelmode will obviously operate allot faster than usermode... -- me ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] My understanding of the BSD license is that you can sell applications that include code licensed under it, modified or not, and you don't have to distribute the modified source code. This is what happened with the Mac OS X operating system. This is of course NOT true for GNU/GPL-licensed software - that is the whole point of the difference. There, you can modify it and sell it, but you must distribute or make available at a low price your modifications in source code form. Much software that accompanies FreeBSD is licensed under the GPL, but the FreeBSD OS is BSD licensed. Check the license carefully for the components you are interested in. If I am wrong, there will be lots of corrections from the other list members. ---End Message--- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT?] Sun/Java licensing
I'm getting lost in Suns marketing-oriented webpages, and I can't seem to find the information I need. I'm going to start doing Java development, and I'm trying to make sure that all my legal ducks are in a row. Can someone point me to a document that explains what's up with Java licensing. I mean, if I install jdk14 to develop java apps, can I resell those apps? There was a warning that said something about not redistributing binaries, but it's too vague to tell me whether that means bytecode genereated by the java compiler, or binaries that would result from me tweaking the jdk itself. I'm looking for a little clarification! TIA. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT?] Sun/Java licensing
Bill Moran wrote: I'm getting lost in Suns marketing-oriented webpages, and I can't seem to find the information I need. I'm going to start doing Java development, and I'm trying to make sure that all my legal ducks are in a row. Can someone point me to a document that explains what's up with Java licensing. I mean, if I install jdk14 to develop java apps, can I resell those apps? There was a warning that said something about not redistributing binaries, but it's too vague to tell me whether that means bytecode genereated by the java compiler, or binaries that would result from me tweaking the jdk itself. I'm looking for a little clarification! TIA. not sure of a specific url that answers your questions. However having been a java developer for a while you can redistribute your app anyway you'd like, however you cannot redistribute SUN's JRE/JDK without their premission. Only apps i've seen that redistribute JRE/JDK are IDE's ... hth ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT?] Sun/Java licensing
Bill Moran wrote: I'm going to start doing Java development, and I'm trying to make sure that all my legal ducks are in a row. Can someone point me to a document that explains what's up with Java licensing. There are two licenses you care about, the one with the Java 1.4 SDK, which says: B. Redistribution. This Agreement does not grant you the right to redistribute Software. Please refer to the following URL for information regarding the redistribution of Software if you are interested in redistribution: http://sun.com/software/products/appsrvr/appsrvr_oem.html ...in other words, Sun would like to sell you a license to run the software in production. However, you don't have to do that if you don't want to, as the other license for the Java Runtime Environment, at: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/j2re-1_4_2_05-license.txt ...is freely available, and is what your end-users will need to accept in order to run your programs. I mean, if I install jdk14 to develop java apps, can I resell those apps? Sure, you own the software you write-- obviously providing you don't include any of Sun's code with your software, indemnify Sun against all evil, etc etc. There was a warning that said something about not redistributing binaries, but it's too vague to tell me whether that means bytecode genereated by the java compiler, or binaries that would result from me tweaking the jdk itself. That's correct. You're not supposed to tweak the JRE itself, nor write software which changes things like how the java.* and com.sun.* packages work. [ No, Virginia, Java is not OSI open source. :-)] -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VMWare licensing file problem.
Hi everybody. I have a problem with the vmware licensing file after installing the vmware2 port. I've received an e-mail with the evaluation key, copied it into /home/user/.vmware, named it license2.0 but it don't seem to work. The message I get is that there is no valid license for this version of VMware workstation. After checking at vmware's website and reading troubleshooting instructions, it seems like there should have been an atachment with a licencefile to the mail I received, but there was none. Just a 30 days evolution license-key. Anybody have any clues ? TIA Regards Geir Svalland ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
VMWare licensing file problem.
Version 2 of VmWare is no longer sold so the evaluation license you got is most likely for version 4 (which does not run on FreeBSD yet). The confusion results from the fact that with version 2 you got a license file but starting with version 3 (which DOES run under FreeBSD) you are only supplied with a key which is to be entered into a form in the VmWare gui once it has been started (there is a register menu or some such). I'm affraid you are out of luck with vmware2 unless you can manage to locate a license file somewhere. It is still possible to find boxed copies of version 3 online (check ebay and such) and that version will run on either 4-STABLE or 5.1 and higher. I'm currently running it under a patched 4.9-RELEASE and also under 5.2-RELEASE. Sean -- Hi everybody. I have a problem with the vmware licensing file after installing the vmware2 port. I've received an e-mail with the evaluation key, copied it into /home/user/.vmware, named it license2.0 but it don't seem to work. The message I get is that there is no valid license for this version of VMware workstation. After checking at vmware's website and reading troubleshooting instructions, it seems like there should have been an atachment with a licencefile to the mail I received, but there was none. Just a 30 days evolution license-key. Anybody have any clues ? TIA Regards Geir Svalland ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: VMWare licensing file problem.
Hi Sean. Thx a lot for your answer. Helped me a lot. / Geir. On Friday 06 February 2004 16.07, Sean Welch wrote: Version 2 of VmWare is no longer sold so the evaluation license you got is most likely for version 4 (which does not run on FreeBSD yet). The confusion results from the fact that with version 2 you got a license file but starting with version 3 (which DOES run under FreeBSD) you are only supplied with a key which is to be entered into a form in the VmWare gui once it has been started (there is a register menu or some such). I'm affraid you are out of luck with vmware2 unless you can manage to locate a license file somewhere. It is still possible to find boxed copies of version 3 online (check ebay and such) and that version will run on either 4-STABLE or 5.1 and higher. I'm currently running it under a patched 4.9-RELEASE and also under 5.2-RELEASE. Sean - - Hi everybody. I have a problem with the vmware licensing file after installing the vmware2 port. I've received an e-mail with the evaluation key, copied it into /home/user/.vmware, named it license2.0 but it don't seem to work. The message I get is that there is no valid license for this version of VMware workstation. After checking at vmware's website and reading troubleshooting instructions, it seems like there should have been an atachment with a licencefile to the mail I received, but there was none. Just a 30 days evolution license-key. Anybody have any clues ? TIA Regards Geir Svalland ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing issues
official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Regents of the University of California. NOTE: The copyright of UC Berkeley's Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) source has been updated. The copyright addendum may be found at ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change and is included below. July 22, 1999 To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD: As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors. Specifically, the provision reads: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: *This product includes software developed by the University of *California, Berkeley and its contributors. Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety. William Hoskins Director, Office of Technology Licensing University of California, Berkeley ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
