Re: Doubt about license
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 10:45:31AM +0200, Artur Grabowski wrote: > Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "public domain" is a meaningless term in many countries (it doesn't have > any meaning in courts, which in turn means that you keep all the rights > that copyright law gives you). > > In many countries you can't give up the right to be recognized as the > author even if you want to. Like in my country. But that does not mean I have to use permissive licenses, that means there is a error in the law. Copyright should be optional; It should be assigned automaticly, but I also should be able to take distance of (abandon) copyright. It sucks that anyone who wants to put there work in public domain has to use a license text instead. So, I've written the Dutch ministry of justice about it. Things should be solved on the right place; that is where the law is. Permissive licenses are sometimes used as a kind of nasty workaround (hack) for putting things effectively in public domain (!by those who don't care about keeping copyright!). *sigh* whatever.. I guess I'm just dutchman.. or so.. My minimalism is probably somewhat obsessive:) > > BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think > > it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". > > I think it's pretty. Makes the code feel like home. -_-
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:40:00PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > | Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason > | to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume, > | but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is > | keeping copyright worth putting the annoying license in every file? > > Calling it an "annoying license" is somewhat disrespectful. If you > find the license annoying, don't use the work. Disrespectful is a funny word for it. The point is: the ISC license sucks less.. (than any other license, I think) I'm thinking if public domain would suck less than a permissive license. > I do this quite often, > in fact, not use some piece of software because I don't like the > license. Me too. When I'm looking for a piece of software (like a webbrowser), I'm most of the time first looking for a permissive license. > | > All files require a copyright and license notice. > | True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Than you > | could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: > | # This file is ISC-licensed. > > And who wrote "This file" ? You seem to have forgotten the copyright > notice. The part where it says (c) 2008, . Idd, I've forgotten. > | This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe > | lines in textfiles. > > What is so annoying about a few lines of text in a source file ? I dunno, somewhat the same thing as HTHL is annoying for it verbosity. I'm an obsessive minimalist I think.. (I've been thinking about using Plan9 wich is more minimalistic, (and has a better design I think) but it's license is yuck) > Yeah, just "being Dutch" and all... ;) ..:) Whatever.
Re: Doubt about license
Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Pulic domain also says "do with it whatever you like". I really don't > know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on > the country you live in. "public domain" is a meaningless term in many countries (it doesn't have any meaning in courts, which in turn means that you keep all the rights that copyright law gives you). In many countries you can't give up the right to be recognized as the author even if you want to. > BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think > it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". I think it's pretty. Makes the code feel like home. //art
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/4/08 8:37 PM, Lars NoodC)n wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of copyright. If it's public domain, then you and everyone else can do *anything* to it or with it. Might be so that an US law states that, but as far as I know the Berne convention, between almost every country on Earth, US included, states that everyone/company automatically has copyright with the creative conception of anything new. So it's basically wrong, there is always automatically a copyright holder. Where it comes up to is knowing who has the copyright and the licensing given by the copyright holder. Although I hate in band signaling, it's quite practical for source code to state in every file who is/are the copyright holder(s) and what license (s)he attached to her/his work. A lot is written about BSD and "honoring" the author with her/his name, everyone may think so, but without the name of the copyright holder it's often very difficult to find out or verify if the copyright holder has given the particular license. The BSD license contains the practical absolute minimum of information to make software as free as possible. +++chefren
Re: Doubt about license
2008/5/4 debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a > seriously curious guy wanting to know. Which is why you stay anonym and don't follow the discussion. Looks like trolling to me. OTOH a non-troll would have the knowledge of http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html and had done his research by reading e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-software_licence#The_Permissive_versus_Copyleft_controversy Best Martin
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/4/08 12:15 PM, Pieter Verberne wrote: But wouldn't it be just great to put anything like this in a file's header? : # This file is in public domain or even better: # public domain When there is no name there is nobody who can testify it is in the public domain. Don't forget: Basically everything is copyrighted, if you produce something you =have= copyright, the right to license. You may choose for a BSD license or even "copy left" but without your creator name nobody can check/verify anything. +++chefren
Re: Doubt about license
> "Pieter" == Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Pieter> I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses Pieter> versus public domain. "public domain" is not a legal "license" in some countries. In other words, you can't totally give away all your rights. So, an explicit license is required. I learned this while taping the FLOSS Weekly show about SQLite (twit.tv/floss26), which Richard Hipp placed in "the public domain" before determining that later there would be problems. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: | > As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play | > with. The only thing I "demand" is credit for that piece of code. The | > reason I do not abandon that right is because at some point in my life I | > might need to use my open source work as a resume or as a reference. | Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason | to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume, | but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is | keeping copyright worth putting the annoying license in every file? This "annoying license" is what got you your Operating System in the first place. McKusick has an interesting story to tell about the history of BSD licensing. The guys at Berkeley did two amazing jobs. They wrote BSD and they got the Regents of the UoC (and their lawyers) to sign off on the BSD license (and, some years later, the modified BSD license). It is because of this license that you get to run OpenBSD (and, generally, just about every other OS out there). Another important point is that your question is wrong. "Keeping copyright" does not require a license. By creating a work, you (the creator, which may be your employer) are its copyright holder. This means that you get all the rights associated with your work. Now the BSD (and ISC) license basically give most of these rights to the user. You are allowed to use, copy and modify the work simply because the license is there, in every file, stating that you are allowed to use, copy and modify. Calling it an "annoying license" is somewhat disrespectful. If you find the license annoying, don't use the work. I do this quite often, in fact, not use some piece of software because I don't like the license. | > All files require a copyright and license notice. | True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Than you | could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: | # This file is ISC-licensed. And who wrote "This file" ? You seem to have forgotten the copyright notice. The part where it says (c) 2008, . | This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe | lines in textfiles. What is so annoying about a few lines of text in a source file ? Yeah, just "being Dutch" and all... ;) Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Doubt about license
> The dutch are notoriously known to argue for arguments sake. That is > what I was getting at. Come on. Only those of french descent do.
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:32:43PM +0300, Lars Nood??n wrote: > Marco Peereboom wrote: > > > public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. > > http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ > > Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of > copyright. If it's public domain, then you and everyone else can do > *anything* to it or with it. The cited document is US only, and does not talk about putting documents into the public domain by the author at the moment of publishing. It mostly talks about work becoming public domain after some period of time after publishing. -Otto > > However, what you were getting at in an earlier post was the difficulty > in identifying what has or has not entered the public domain. > > The purpose of copyright is not what the MPAA/RIAA/MSFTers will have you > believe. The purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful > arts..." > http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8 > > Given the problems nowadays with the drift and contradictory efforts by > MS/MPAA/RIAA/Disney Corp and a generally litigious society (at least in > the US) extra clarification is needed. Hence the licenses. The ISC > license bootstraps of that promotion of science and useful arts by > skipping that waiting period and launching the code directly into an > approximation of the public domain. > > -Lars
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/4/08, Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pulic domain also says "do with it whatever you like". I really don't > know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on > the country you live in. I'm a minimalist is some respects, and I think > you should not put anything in a license file that is not necessary: search for implied warranty.
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/4/08, Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason > to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume, > but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is > keeping copyright worth putting the annoying license in every file? yes. > > All files require a copyright and license notice. > > True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Than you > could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: > # This file is ISC-licensed. Copyright law is complicated enough without attempting to include the license by reference. Unless you can prove that the above sentence has the exact same legal standing as the full text, it's a no go.
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 07:03:09PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > > (but going by your name you are just being dutch!). > I don't understand.. Yes I'm dutch, is this a joke/saying? Yes and no :-) The dutch are notoriously known to argue for arguments sake. That is what I was getting at. Beware of the yellow threat!
Re: Doubt about license
Marco Peereboom wrote: > public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ Public domain is very clearly defined by law: it is the absence of copyright. If it's public domain, then you and everyone else can do *anything* to it or with it. However, what you were getting at in an earlier post was the difficulty in identifying what has or has not entered the public domain. The purpose of copyright is not what the MPAA/RIAA/MSFTers will have you believe. The purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8 Given the problems nowadays with the drift and contradictory efforts by MS/MPAA/RIAA/Disney Corp and a generally litigious society (at least in the US) extra clarification is needed. Hence the licenses. The ISC license bootstraps of that promotion of science and useful arts by skipping that waiting period and launching the code directly into an approximation of the public domain. -Lars
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:12:04AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. True (in the Nederlands), I recently wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice about dutch copyright law wich does not give an author the possibility to put a work in public domain at all. If they could change that;) (I'm just curious about there response, not expecting to much) > I really have no idea what you are arguing Most important for me is: I'm just curious about your opinions.. So I go into discussion. > (but going by your name you are just being dutch!). I don't understand.. Yes I'm dutch, is this a joke/saying?
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 04:31:11PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2008-05-04, Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? > > Anyone can then change the contents of the URL later on. For example: > domain expires, evil scammers grab it and publish a new license at the > same URL requiring payment for commercial use. > > Much safer for users if the license is supplied with the code... > > > Than you > > could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: > > # This file is ISC-licensed. > > > > This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe > > lines in textfiles. > > If you were talking about the 300+ lines of GPL I'd understand > wanting to reduce it. But 13 lines of ISC license - is that really > a problem? Alright.. an infinite discussion... Well, the way it's now is also pretty:-)
Re: Doubt about license
On 2008-05-04, Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Anyone can then change the contents of the URL later on. For example: domain expires, evil scammers grab it and publish a new license at the same URL requiring payment for commercial use. Much safer for users if the license is supplied with the code... > Than you > could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: > # This file is ISC-licensed. > > This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe > lines in textfiles. If you were talking about the 300+ lines of GPL I'd understand wanting to reduce it. But 13 lines of ISC license - is that really a problem?
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:09:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > The only section of copyright that isn't surrendered by the ISC license > > (also often mistakenly called the BSD) is authorship. > Right. > > > As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play > > with. The only thing I "demand" is credit for that piece of code. The > > reason I do not abandon that right is because at some point in my life I > > might need to use my open source work as a resume or as a reference. > Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason > to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume, > but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is > keeping copyright worth putting the annoying license in every file? Yes. > > > All files require a copyright and license notice. > True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Than you > could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: > # This file is ISC-licensed. What if there is an updated ISC license? then which one is it? > > This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe > lines in textfiles. public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. I really have no idea what you are arguing (but going by your name you are just being dutch!).
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:29:01PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:12:37PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > > > But in general, we choose to remain known as author. > > > That is our privilege for the files we created or modified > > > extensively. Whatever you choose to do with things you publish is your > > > decision. > > Uhm.. "to remain known as author": sounds vague to me. (maybe because > > of my english) . However, when you put anything in public domain, you > > will stay recognized as the (orginal) author. (in most cases). Look at > > qmail, or public domain Korn shell. There only may by a chance that > > some autors names are 'lost' sometimes (in redistributions) because > > of the lack of obligation to mention the authors. > > That is exactly the thing we want to prevent. We create source code > and want our names to remain in the source. We are proud of what we > have created. We are proud others find it useful and let them use our > source code in the way they want to, as long as we are still > recognized as authors according to copyright law. So we want our names > to remain in the files, and not just as "common knowledge", which is > vague and often wrong. I don't think that public domain would cause credits to be lost (often). Version control, mailing list archives (internet archive, Wikipedia) keep those credits also. Well, maybe when someone reuses part of the code...
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:09:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > The only section of copyright that isn't surrendered by the ISC license > (also often mistakenly called the BSD) is authorship. Right. > As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play > with. The only thing I "demand" is credit for that piece of code. The > reason I do not abandon that right is because at some point in my life I > might need to use my open source work as a resume or as a reference. Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume, but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is keeping copyright worth putting the annoying license in every file? > All files require a copyright and license notice. True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Than you could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: # This file is ISC-licensed. This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe lines in textfiles.
Re: Doubt about license
On May 4, 2008, at 1:14 AM, Pieter Verberne wrote: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: ["bsd vs. GPL"] Sorry for 'stealing' this thread but I'm not sure if I should make a new thread for this. I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses versus public domain. As an admin public domain code could leave me in a bad place. Imagine for a minute that I start building a project with it and the project turns into something cool and I want to start selling my services deploying it or similar things or selling boxes to do whatever it is it does. Or even just build a box that does something cool for work and they decide to have another business unit do the same thing. With the current state of OpenBSD licensing I'm in a good spot. I can do what I want and if any legal questions about the code arise I have a clear and legally well defined argument for why a reasonable person would think they could use the code in that way. And some very smart people at my back since any questions about my right to do anything I want with the code, short of denying those same very smart people credit, are also questions about their license and their right to do whatever they want with -their- code. Enlightened self interest is a fucking wonderful thing. By contrast with the GPL there are any number of hoops I need to jump through before doing the same thing and history shows us that relatively minor missteps result in them getting very ugly with you since , in their minds, you doing whatever you want with the code without meeting all of their conditions lessens their "freedom". I think this also neatly disproves the idea that BSD/ISC style licenses put the power in the hands of the coders and GPL puts it in the hand of the users. BSD/ISC makes the coders and users partners based on mutual self interest whereas GPL puts -all- the power in the hands of the license holder. Public domain leaves me in a very bad place indeed. If anybody questions my right to use the code in question I have no real way to build a strong case that a reasonable person would think they could use the code in that way. Or at least it makes it a fuck of a lot harder than simply pointing at the license. This is because public domain is meant to be what happens to any work -after- the copyright expires. In the case of works that have passed into the public domain there is a clear and legally well defined trail of when it was in copyright, when it passed into the public domain, and where it came from. Which means that if, for example, I want to republish the original Tarzan nobody can come after me because it's trivial to prove that I have the right to do so. Not so with works placed directly into the public domain because doing so means that there is no legally well defined way to determine where it came from so anybody who can modify the timestamp on a file can claim to be the original author. What does the ISC license actually do? It buys the end user a legally well defined right to use the code that places him in partnership with the original author if any legal issues arise. As opposed to the lack of any legally well defined right to use it that results from works placed directly into the public domain or the mutually antagonistic relationship with the original author the GPL creates. And that's a fuck of lot.
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:12:37PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > > > If you put anything in public domain, you'll give up your copyright. So > > > the next person te distribute your software is allowed to remove your > > > name from the credits list. I can imagine this sounds like a problem for > > > some man. But hey, who wrote Qmail? No-one will forget. > > > > If you look at the tree, you'll see that some newly created files are > > public domain. > That's good! > > > But in general, we choose to remain known as author. > > That is our privilege for the files we created or modified > > extensively. Whatever you choose to do with things you publish is your > > decision. > Uhm.. "to remain known as author": sounds vague to me. (maybe because > of my english) . However, when you put anything in public domain, you > will stay recognized as the (orginal) author. (in most cases). Look at > qmail, or public domain Korn shell. There only may by a chance that > some autors names are 'lost' sometimes (in redistributions) because > of the lack of obligation to mention the authors. That is exactly the thing we want to prevent. We create source code and want our names to remain in the source. We are proud of what we have created. We are proud others find it useful and let them use our source code in the way they want to, as long as we are still recognized as authors according to copyright law. So we want our names to remain in the files, and not just as "common knowledge", which is vague and often wrong. > > And you completely forget that a lot of the work done in the tree is > > small changes to existing, BSD licensed files originally authored by > > people not working in the tree anymore. We cannot change the license > > of these files for obvious reasons. > Well, I not really forget. I was just talking about new written code. > > > > BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think > > > it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". > > > > IIRC copyright law requires the license to be put in every source > > file. > > Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything > like this in a file's header? : > # This file is in public domain > or even better: > # public domain > > So IIRC requires the full license? That's a shame, it would be nicer to > use the license's name only. IIRC == If I remember correctly. Also, something in my memory tells me the concept of public domain is not as well defined and internationally coherent as copyright law, but my memory might be playing tricks with me. -Otto
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:12:37PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > > But in general, we choose to remain known as author. > > That is our privilege for the files we created or modified > > extensively. Whatever you choose to do with things you publish is your > > decision. > Uhm.. "to remain known as author": sounds vague to me. (maybe because > of my english) . However, when you put anything in public domain, you > will stay recognized as the (orginal) author. (in most cases). Look at > qmail, or public domain Korn shell. There only may by a chance that > some autors names are 'lost' sometimes (in redistributions) because > of the lack of obligation to mention the authors. The only section of copyright that isn't surrendered by the ISC license (also often mistakenly called the BSD) is authorship. As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play with. The only thing I "demand" is credit for that piece of code. The reason I do not abandon that right is because at some point in my life I might need to use my open source work as a resume or as a reference. On the other hand I do not like to be coerced into anything. Especially under the cloak of charity. The GPL protects the user from the author and in my world that is backwards. > > > And you completely forget that a lot of the work done in the tree is > > small changes to existing, BSD licensed files originally authored by > > people not working in the tree anymore. We cannot change the license > > of these files for obvious reasons. > Well, I not really forget. I was just talking about new written code. The ISC license is the license of choice for newly written OpenBSD code. There are some others that are compatible enough that are allowed as well. > > > > BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think > > > it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". > > > > IIRC copyright law requires the license to be put in every source > > file. > > Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything > like this in a file's header? : > # This file is in public domain > or even better: > # public domain > > So IIRC requires the full license? That's a shame, it would be nicer to > use the license's name only.A All files require a copyright and license notice. There have been many examples where files were borrowed from other places and then people lost track as to where it came from. Not having a license makes that file 100% copyrighted. If a file has no license one is NOT allowed to: * copy * modify * distribute So in an open source project that is really really bad.
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 01:46:49PM +0200, Almir Karic wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Pieter Verberne > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything > > like this in a file's header? : > > # This file is in public domain > > or even better: > > # public domain > > > > So IIRC requires the full license? That's a shame, it would be nicer to > > use the license's name only. > > heh, IIRC == If I Recall/Remember Correctly :-)
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Pieter Verberne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything > like this in a file's header? : > # This file is in public domain > or even better: > # public domain > > So IIRC requires the full license? That's a shame, it would be nicer to > use the license's name only. heh, IIRC == If I Recall/Remember Correctly -- For far too long, power has been concentrated in the hands of "root" and his "wheel" oligarchy. We have instituted a dictatorship of the users. All system administration functions will be handled by the People's Committee for Democratically Organizing the System (PC-DOS).
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:44:07AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > > I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses > > versus public domain. > > > > Pulic domain also says "do with it whatever you like". I really don't > > know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on > > the country you live in. I'm a minimalist is some respects, and I think > > you should not put anything in a license file that is not necessary: > > [quote] > > ...we favor licenses that are both clear and concise and, most > > importantly, that don't require a lawyer to interpret. > > --todd ( http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/282 ) > > [/quote] > > > > If you put anything in public domain, you'll give up your copyright. So > > the next person te distribute your software is allowed to remove your > > name from the credits list. I can imagine this sounds like a problem for > > some man. But hey, who wrote Qmail? No-one will forget. > > If you look at the tree, you'll see that some newly created files are > public domain. That's good! > But in general, we choose to remain known as author. > That is our privilege for the files we created or modified > extensively. Whatever you choose to do with things you publish is your > decision. Uhm.. "to remain known as author": sounds vague to me. (maybe because of my english) . However, when you put anything in public domain, you will stay recognized as the (orginal) author. (in most cases). Look at qmail, or public domain Korn shell. There only may by a chance that some autors names are 'lost' sometimes (in redistributions) because of the lack of obligation to mention the authors. > And you completely forget that a lot of the work done in the tree is > small changes to existing, BSD licensed files originally authored by > people not working in the tree anymore. We cannot change the license > of these files for obvious reasons. Well, I not really forget. I was just talking about new written code. > > BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think > > it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". > > IIRC copyright law requires the license to be put in every source > file. Uhm, dunno what IIRC is.. But wouldn't it be just great to put anything like this in a file's header? : # This file is in public domain or even better: # public domain So IIRC requires the full license? That's a shame, it would be nicer to use the license's name only.
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > 1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes > forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free. > If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which > take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not > giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing > anything in this case?? I can understand that there are many more > companies which have used the code(Apple) and given back but there are > also opposite ends... No, nothing is lost. A way to look at this which I like more and more: people can still do `bad' things with code under the BSD licence, like extend it and not give back their changes. They are free to do so. The BSD licence does not steal your freedom to make ethical choices about code. On the other hand, the GPL makes half of the ethical choice for you: you want to use the code, you have to give back. The only way not to give back is to not use the code (or, well, you can make a bigger ethical choice of using the code and lying about it).
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > > ["bsd vs. GPL"] > > Sorry for 'stealing' this thread but I'm not sure if I should make a new > thread for this. > > I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses > versus public domain. > > What does the ISC license actually do? > It keeps your copyright (so you can change the license later, but I > guess you won't), > it says: do with it whatever you want, > it says: don't blame me for anything. > > Pulic domain also says "do with it whatever you like". I really don't > know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on > the country you live in. I'm a minimalist is some respects, and I think > you should not put anything in a license file that is not necessary: > [quote] > ...we favor licenses that are both clear and concise and, most > importantly, that don't require a lawyer to interpret. > --todd ( http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/282 ) > [/quote] > > If you put anything in public domain, you'll give up your copyright. So > the next person te distribute your software is allowed to remove your > name from the credits list. I can imagine this sounds like a problem for > some man. But hey, who wrote Qmail? No-one will forget. If you look at the tree, you'll see that some newly created files are public domain. But in general, we choose to remain known as author. That is our privilege for the files we created or modified extensively. Whatever you choose to do with things you publish is your decision. And you completely forget that a lot of the work done in the tree is small changes to existing, BSD licensed files originally authored by people not working in the tree anymore. We cannot change the license of these files for obvious reasons. > BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think > it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". IIRC copyright law requires the license to be put in every source file. -Otto
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > ["bsd vs. GPL"] Sorry for 'stealing' this thread but I'm not sure if I should make a new thread for this. I'm wondering what OpenBSD people think about BSD (-like) licenses versus public domain. What does the ISC license actually do? It keeps your copyright (so you can change the license later, but I guess you won't), it says: do with it whatever you want, it says: don't blame me for anything. Pulic domain also says "do with it whatever you like". I really don't know about the importance of the disclaimer. Maybe it depends on the country you live in. I'm a minimalist is some respects, and I think you should not put anything in a license file that is not necessary: [quote] ...we favor licenses that are both clear and concise and, most importantly, that don't require a lawyer to interpret. --todd ( http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/282 ) [/quote] If you put anything in public domain, you'll give up your copyright. So the next person te distribute your software is allowed to remove your name from the credits list. I can imagine this sounds like a problem for some man. But hey, who wrote Qmail? No-one will forget. BTW, how many times is the BSD license in the source repository? I think it is a filthiness of "$ head [sourcefile]". Pieter Verberne
Re: Doubt about license
Hi, On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > 1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes > forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free. > If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which > take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not > giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing > anything in this case?? I can understand that there are many more > companies which have used the code(Apple) and given back but there are > also opposite ends... I'd certainly not want to live in a world where SSH and the BSD network stack would be reimplemented by proprietary software vendors again and again. BSD developers give away their code for (almost) nothing. GPL developers demand all kinds of things in return for theirs. Nobody loses anything when a company uses BSD code in a proprietary program. The original BSD code does not magically become proprietary when it is used in a proprietary product, it is just as free as it was before. > 2. I know many of you consider RMS a backstabber on the goals of > "freedom". What i don't understand is what is wrong in porting free > software to non-free platforms? Shouldn't people caged on non-free > platforms know about the power of free software?? When there is no one > to explain to them what free software is, does'nt this porting get > atleast a percent of them interested in a successful and superior free > software product(like firefox)? There is nothing wrong except that RMS himself mumbles about non-free software being unethical while helping others use non-free software with those ports being offered by the FSF. Also, none of the firefox using lusers I know have any idea about it being "free", except free as in beer, and they probably couldn't care less even if they did. They will use whatever software that gets their job done. The argument of "introducing people to free software" is rather weak, and the arguments against it, like the win32 port of gcc, have been discussed on this list before. -- Jussi Peltola
Re: Doubt about license
Jacob Meuser ha scritto: On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: Hello, [snip] the question is, how is porting free software to non-free platforms ok, but providing easier ways to install non-free software on free platforms wrong? With 2 doubleclick you can install Maple, Matlab or Mathematica in Linux... And, someone say (RMS) that in OpenBSD ports there are non-free software... But, as far i know, in /usr/ports not exist code but just Makefiles, so, in OpenBSD ports all it's free. Mr X have to talk with his homies... Another thing, it's...that if someone talk with me about freedom and apply the rule: Do what i say but not what i do.(Italian Proverb) he cant expect that all people can trust him...because it's an annoing parrot... my 2 cent in a bottle ;) the arguments, both pro and con, are ultimately the same. to say one way is wrong but the other is ok is hypocritical. I Agree. Shouldn't people caged on non-free platforms know about the power of free software?? When there is no one to explain to them what free software is, does'nt this porting get atleast a percent of them interested in a successful and superior free software product(like firefox)? pose that question to a non-nerd, and they will laugh at the idea that using non-free software cages them. they probably also use firefox but could care less about the license or the source code, and if you try to explain, they will just look blankly and say, "ok, but I really don't care as long as I can surf the `net." oh, and they only care about free as in they didn't pay anything. I think that if you say to all peoples, that thing, no one care. But exist people like me and like you that can make a choice... and know why... Thank you for taking the time to read this. Send a beer as attachment next time you want to ask that things, i end my third Leffe and i'm mad!!
Re: Doubt about license
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Jacob Meuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > > I have a few questions(no, not which license is better.:): > It all depends on what you want to do. At the very basic level, the GPL gives freedom to the end users. The BSD license gives freedom to the developers. > > If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which > > take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not > > giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not > > just because a company takes BSD code and makes a proprietary product out > of it, does not mean the original code is any less free. > Not only that. The GPL does not stop all proprietary forks either. In the past, gcc was forked internally by some big shops. Since they did not redistribute the code outside of the company, there was no need to share the code back up stream. GPL could do nothing to stop that. However, after a while, the pain of maintaining that fork was so big that the forking developers rebelled and refuse to continue do fork. So, the changes rolled back upstream. Would that have happened with a BSD license? Yes. So, in the end, does it matter? Not really. Now, take a look at something like kerberos. Microsoft took it, and applied some proprietary extensions. They forked it, and tried to keep it internal. The kerberos standard people said - either document the changes, or we'll define the extensions and then you'll be out of compliance - so Microsoft caved. But they would not have even went with Kerberos if it was GPLed. But today, my linux boxes at work can authenticate using kerberos. This is a big win for me. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Re: Doubt about license
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:22 PM, bofh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But today, my linux boxes at work can authenticate using kerberos. This > is a big win for me. > That is - authenticate to AD using kerberos. Sorry for any confusion. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. "Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted." -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Re: Doubt about license
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > Hello, > > Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a > seriously curious guy wanting to know. > I searched google but could not find any clear explanation. Please > point me in the right direction if this has been discussed before. > Please spare me the flames and do not reply if you find this > offensive... I'm just trying to know. :) > I am a great fan of Theo and RMS. I've been reading a lot on the BSD > license and GPL license lately. > > I have a few questions(no, not which license is better.:): > > 1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes > forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free. > If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which > take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not > giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing > anything in this case?? I can understand that there are many more > companies which have used the code(Apple) and given back but there are > also opposite ends... no. nothing is lost, and something is gained. just because a company takes BSD code and makes a proprietary product out of it, does not mean the original code is any less free. and something is gained, because people are now using better code. you mention the IP stack. would you rather have to interoperate with a buggy MS produced stack? now let's turn that around. will MS use GPL code? probably not, at least not anytime soon. will GNU/Linux ever be as common as Windows? probably not, at least not any time soon. does GPL code end up helping the vast majority of computer users? not today, and probably not anytime soon. otoh, as you have pointed out, BSD code _is_ helping the vast majority of computer users, right now, today. you see, the GPL is, well, segregatory. it is based on lack of trust and the desire to control. > 2. I know many of you consider RMS a backstabber on the goals of > "freedom". What i don't understand is what is wrong in porting free > software to non-free platforms? the question is, how is porting free software to non-free platforms ok, but providing easier ways to install non-free software on free platforms wrong? the arguments, both pro and con, are ultimately the same. to say one way is wrong but the other is ok is hypocritical. > Shouldn't people caged on non-free > platforms know about the power of free software?? When there is no one > to explain to them what free software is, does'nt this porting get > atleast a percent of them interested in a successful and superior free > software product(like firefox)? pose that question to a non-nerd, and they will laugh at the idea that using non-free software cages them. they probably also use firefox but could care less about the license or the source code, and if you try to explain, they will just look blankly and say, "ok, but I really don't care as long as I can surf the `net." oh, and they only care about free as in they didn't pay anything. > Thank you for taking the time to read this. > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Doubt about license
debian developer wrote: Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a seriously curious guy wanting to know. That's what all the trolls say. If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing anything in this case?? Microsoft also uses OpenBSD code for much of their Services For Unix product. What's wrong with that? If your goal is to write quality code and give it to the world, then why not let the world use it?
Re: Doubt about license
On 5/3/08, debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes > forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free. > If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which > take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not > giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing > anything in this case?? I can understand that there are many more > companies which have used the code(Apple) and given back but there are > also opposite ends... no, nothing is loosed.
Doubt about license
Hello, Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a seriously curious guy wanting to know. I searched google but could not find any clear explanation. Please point me in the right direction if this has been discussed before. Please spare me the flames and do not reply if you find this offensive... I'm just trying to know. :) I am a great fan of Theo and RMS. I've been reading a lot on the BSD license and GPL license lately. I have a few questions(no, not which license is better.:): 1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free. If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing anything in this case?? I can understand that there are many more companies which have used the code(Apple) and given back but there are also opposite ends... 2. I know many of you consider RMS a backstabber on the goals of "freedom". What i don't understand is what is wrong in porting free software to non-free platforms? Shouldn't people caged on non-free platforms know about the power of free software?? When there is no one to explain to them what free software is, does'nt this porting get atleast a percent of them interested in a successful and superior free software product(like firefox)? Thank you for taking the time to read this.
