Open Source Licenses

[quadz]

Greetings,

I'm not trying to Write The Book on open source licenses here, but recently there appears to have been some confusion and/or disagreement as to the nature or ramifications of the GNU Public License (GPL).

Certainly everyone is probably familiar with the concept of proprietary closed-source software (most commercial software falls into this category), so I thought it might be useful to look at the other end of the spectrum--extremely unrestricted open source software.

I think the NetBSD license is a good example of the latter category.  The license itself consists of four simple clauses (followed by the obligatory ALL CAPS DISCLAIMER):

 * Copyright (c) 2005 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc.
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
 *    must display the following acknowledgement:
 *        This product includes software developed by the NetBSD
 *        Foundation, Inc. and its contributors.
 * 4. Neither the name of The NetBSD Foundation nor the names of its
 *    contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
 *    from this software without specific prior written permission.
 *
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS
 * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED
 * TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
 * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR CONTRIBUTORS
 * BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
 * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
 * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
 * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
 * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
 * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
 * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


Compared to many open source licenses, the above is remarkably simple.  What may be interesting is how the NetBSD folks describe their open source license in constrast with the GPL, in their own words:  ^[1]

Why the NetBSD Project uses a Berkeley-style license

The people working on the NetBSD Project want to provide a high-quality system that anyone can use for whatever they want. We are not in it for the money (we are volunteers!), so we have no desire to keep people from distributing our work. However, for various reasons, we would like credit for the work that we do, and so neither do we want to place our work into the public domain, and thereby give up our claim to even having our names on the software we wrote! Berkeley-style licenses are a happy medium: they allow people to copy and modify the software, so long as we get name recognition and our names aren't used without our permissions.

One thing that some people don't realize about Berkeley-style licenses is that they allow licensees (the users of the licensed work) to sell the code, in any form, with or without modification, and that they make no requirement that licensees give away the source code, even if they're selling binaries. This provides a striking contrast to the license terms granted by the GNU General Public License, because the GPL requires that, if you're distributing binaries, you must be willing to give away the sources to build those binaries.

Those of us working on the NetBSD Project are aware of this distinction, and some even value it. As stated above, we want anyone to be able to use the NetBSD operating system for whatever they want, just as long as they follow the few restrictions made by our license terms. Additionally, we don't think it's right to require people who add to our work and want to distribute the results (for profit or otherwise) to give away the source to their additions; they made the additions, and they should be free to do with them as they wish.

In summary, the people involved in the NetBSD Project use a Berkeley-style license where possible because it closely matches our goal of allowing users to do whatever they'd like with our software, while making sure that we get credit for the work we have done. We are pragmatic, however, and will include software with different license terms in the NetBSD operating system if it significantly improves the quality of the system.

As one can see, this is a fairly maximally unrestrictive license.  (The italics in, "we want anyone to be able to use the NetBSD operating system for whatever they want", were their own, not added by me.)


So how does the maximally unrestrictive NetBSD license contrast with the GPL?

In short, they have a slightly different focus.  NetBSD aims to give people the freedom to do whatever they like with the code (provided proper credit is given.)  This includes the freedom to close the source and keep modifications proprietary.  GPL aims to ensure all GPL code remains free (as in freedom, not as in beer) and thus imposes more restrictions than NetBSD.  GPL says, if you modify this code and distribute binaries, then you must also make the modified source code available.  You can charge whatever you want for the binaries, but the source code must be available for a nominal fee (no more than the cost of physically duplicating the source code.)

And so, the chief similarities between the NetBSD and GPL licenses may be that in both cases the code is initially freely distributed, and that in both cases anyone may charge whatever they want for binaries based on the original code, or modifications of the code.  The chief difference being that NetBSD allows modified source to become proprietary, where GPL requires that modified source remain free (as in freedom, not as in beer.)


Well -- that's my first stab at contrasting the differences...  Did I miss anything?

(Edit: I have purposefully avoided delving into the so-called 'viral' nature of the GPL, for simplicity' sake, in this initial post.)


Regards,

quadz

[reaper]

GPL was made by hippies for hippies although they are fighting a much needed battle. 

so I say, if you are trying to fight that battle, go with GPL.  if you want people to have the freedom to do whatever they want, go with a BSD style license.

with GPL you can't just modify the source, and distribute it without  a source, and that's not really "free to do whatever you want", is it.

I use TONS of open source software, and i'm very thankfull, but I also respect people want to eat for their hard work.  Given he current state of affairs I think we're good, you have options as a consumer, and businesses have options, as people who have different goals (not that there is anything wrong with that).  I think we are in a state of good balance.

but, if only Linux could run Outlook, and Office, I would so love to get rid of this inferior OS that is Windows!  I would like that, but I guess it's their right that we can't modify them to run on Linux, or do whatever it takes to run applications made for Windows on Linux.

[zndkw1n]

GPL is also used by companies like id to ensure that no one is gonna take their source code and make a propietary program with it, without shelling over a few hundred thousand greenbacks first.

[|iR|Focalor]

GPL is also used by companies like id to ensure that no one is gonna take their source code and make a propietary program with it, without shelling over a few hundred thousand greenbacks first.

 

God damn capitalists. How dare they make a profit off of something they created.

[zndkw1n]

You know, it's really all relative, the idea of property began when some cowboy saw a piece of land, made a fence around it and called it "private property".  But I'm not against making money, just fucking greed. 

[jägermonsta]

the idea of property began when some cowboy saw a piece of land, made a fence around it and called it "private property".

Uhhh? 

[zndkw1n]

But I agree, more people should be aware of these great open source licenses, theres such a great amount of software released under them.  And it goes beyond the usual ones like linux, bsd, etc.  Now with gpl being on it's 3.0 release, the previous license's loopholes are finally closed.

[reaper]

if I wrote software I would release it under BSD style license

 

[|iR|Focalor]

You know, it's really all relative, the idea of property began when some cowboy saw a piece of land, made a fence around it and called it "private property".  But I'm not against making money, just fucking greed. 

Greed is just one of many sins, all of which lead to physical, mental, and emotional gratification. Preach your haughty moral dogma and worthless gospel of socialism to someone else, my heaven is here on earth RIGHT NOW.

[[BTF]Defiant!]

1) The "viral" aspects of more recent versions of the GPL are important to those who value intellectual property or want to block others from one's market.  Along the confusing lines of the previous posts, I tend to think that IP is overrated depending upon the market.

2) One advantage of both licenses is the ease in evaluation.  I find custom license agreements exceedingly tiresome, but within the producer's right of course.

Extending this thought, like the Creative Commons, it would be great to have a more automated policy mechanism.  Where I as a user could elect the preferences I want out of the software or services I use (e.g. privacy policy) and enforce my preferences automatically.  Human expressible and machine enforceable.

[quadz]

The "viral" aspects of more recent versions of the GPL are important to those who value intellectual property or want to block others from one's market.  Along the confusing lines of the previous posts, I tend to think that IP is overrated depending upon the market.

I think what's particularly interesting about the GPL is it allows those two different intellectual property / businesses models to coexist simultaneously.  That is, business which value closed source software, can pay license fees to make use of a piece of software, while simultaneously people who are willing to share their code can freely use that same software via the GPL.

Two current examples would be the Trolltech Qt GUI widget toolkit, and the Oracle Berkeley DB.  Both are projects which are under active commercial development, and each makes their code available under a GPL compatible license, as well as via closed-source-compatible commercial licenses.

I think that's kind of neat... the GPL allows them to say: "OK, We're willing to share our code, if you're willing to share yours."  "...And if not, well, your closed source can mingle with our closed source for a fee.  Your choice."

I think it's somewhat remarkable that the GPL allows those two diametrically opposed approaches to coexist on the same codebase.

As an aside... I strongly suspect that if a license like the GPL hadn't existed, id Software might have gone the route of MOST game companies, and open sourced nothing at all.

If those are my only choices, then I for one think having Quake2 source code under the GPL, is about a million billion times better than having no Q2 source code at all. 


Regards,

quadz

[[BTF]Defiant!]

Yes, good options for all.

Another experience was the ambiguity of "linking" meaning static or dynamic.  I haven't personally reread it, but I think this has been clarified in later GPL to be any form of use.

[The Happy Friar]

Another experience was the ambiguity of "linking" meaning static or dynamic.  I haven't personally reread it, but I think this has been clarified in later GPL to be any form of use.

From personal experience, id doesn't actually know what that means either.  I asked (I believe I was the one carmack was referencing in '06 when he said people wanted to keep their own code closed if they used the Q3A GPL code.  He was talking about the exact same thing I asked, and I asked for legal reasons, that was the only reason).

But both licenses give you restrictions anyway: you must give credit for both.  Even if you re-wrote 99% of a program that was under the netBSD license, you'd still need to give credit to someone who could of broken the program. 

But both licenses are very easy to.  The GPL seems more communistic then others (it's not your property, it's everybody's & you must share) but that can be worked around.  If I sold a game with it I could only include the source code on the CD so at least someone must buy the game.    Or if I make a great OS, I sell it for $10k.  If people want the source, they buy it from me.  The catch is that I must provide the source if I provide the binaries.  The source is free, the program with the disc is $10.  Them, of course, someone could buy it & give it away, but thanks to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. many would be afraid they're stealing & pay anyway.  Herd mentality! 

The nice thing about the BSD is that I could initially release closed-source & then pull an id: keep one set of code that's close source & people pay for & another that's under GPL & people MUST share.  Due to the greed that zndkw1n talked about, there's always someone willing to pay lots of extra $$ for the same thing they get free if they can not share it.  Hey, it pays the bills! 

[quadz]

Another experience was the ambiguity of "linking" meaning static or dynamic.  I haven't personally reread it, but I think this has been clarified in later GPL to be any form of use.

From personal experience, id doesn't actually know what that means either.  I asked (I believe I was the one carmack was referencing in '06 when he said people wanted to keep their own code closed if they used the Q3A GPL code.  He was talking about the exact same thing I asked, and I asked for legal reasons, that was the only reason).

That sounds interesting, could you say more about what it was you asked Carmack?

The GPL seems more communistic then others (it's not your property, it's everybody's & you must share) but that can be worked around.

If you are the copyright holder, it's still your property.  You can release the source under GPL, and you can keep a closed source version that you modify yourself and don't release at all.  You could also release your source code under multiple licenses. 

If you're the copyright holder, you're not giving up any rights when you license your code.


Regards,

[The Happy Friar]

That sounds interesting, could you say more about what it was you asked Carmack?

It was todd who responded to my e-mails.  Basically, me & someone were tossing around the idea of using the Q3A GPL engine & were interested in doing some things as DLL's instead of directly in the engine.  Partly because we didn't want to initially share that part, partly for convienance: if a part needs updating you don't need to update the whole game engine (like how ET:QW has separate dll's for the tools).  I'm 90% sure he asked john about it as that gets messy & the reply was we should check out the license specifics & contact someome who knows more about the GPL license.

Carmack did answer e-mails I had about the D3 engine in '04 though.

If you are the copyright holder, it's still your property.  You can release the source under GPL, and you can keep a closed source version that you modify yourself and don't release at all.  You could also release your source code under multiple licenses. 

If you're the copyright holder, you're not giving up any rights when you license your code.

Are you talking about if you made your own code & released a GPL version (like id) or if you used an already existing GPL code?  I was referring to the first.  I've never read anything in the licenses that allows you to release under a different license type, just newer versions of the current one if you desire.  If that was the case GPL/BSD would be pointless.   If I used GPL source & held on to it myself so nobody else could have the source then I could never release anything besides media/output.  But, if I, for example, gave you a copy to help, you're also bound to the GPL & you could give it away & there's no legal reason that I could prevent you.

I was referring to the source only.  I 100% understand that all the non-GPL'ed parts are your copyright (graphics, data, etc).  The GPL is the copyright, I give the right for anyone to copy/sell as they see fit. You're probley thinking of patent, but I could of sworn I read that the GPL covers that too: you can patent but you can't restrict people from using it, it is then under the GPL.