Talk:BSD licenses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Untitled discussion

The format and content of this page is all wrong :

-= Format =-

- Category : Name - Category : Usage - Category : History - Category : Protection Clause terms - Category : Copyright holders - category : BSD-related disputes - Category : BSD compatibility - Category : Opponent - Category : Criticism - Category : Common misconceptions - Category : Links and references - Category : See also - Category : External links - Category : BSD revision

-= Content =-

"permissive"

The BSD protection clause dont give any permission , or rights. Its an abandonware license do as you wish as long as you dont sue me back for the use of the code.

The copyright holders of BSD dont care about there code and they are the one who have been

permisive on its usage not the protection clause itself

"Permissive licenses"

Traitor license is more appropriate , where as BSD is supossed to promote the use and promotion of Open Source software , its ALWAYS used as a trojan horse to take control of the code released under it. Allowing derivative license switch to something else almost always closed.

"sometimes with important differences pertaining to license compatibility "

BSD is compatible with everything. It defends and protect no value.

"The licenses have few restrictions compared to other free software licenses such as the GNU GPL or even the default restrictions provided by copyright, putting it relatively closer to the public domain. "

The license as no restriction of usage , you can close the code , switch the license , close your derivative. But it also as no protection of rights like the rights to modify the code , the right to see the code , the rights to learn from or study the code.


  • 145.254.233.213 05:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) minor text revs for smoother reading... (trying to be WikiGnoming):
  • add forward ref to the first mentioning of "advertising clause" for better reading (sudden use of terms explained only later should be forward referenced)
  • "The BSD License does not prohibit the use ... A notable example of such use is ..." (Substituted such use for this because using this is inaccurate, although this advancement costs a duplication of the word use.)
  • re-spelled "BSD License Template"
  • NOTE: The meanining of, the clause deletes the third section, seems unclear to me. Could the Original author of that phrase please clarify ? (Did you mean to say, the third section of the clause is deleted or something like that? While I don't know about the intricacies of the licenses in question, it seems strange to me that a non-present clause (the third one necessarily omitted from a 2-clause vs. the 3-clause version) should be able to "do" something ("delete" a section or anything)).


SteveAtlanta 01:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I have just completed some fairly significant edits to the article, which I feel warrant justification on this page:
    • The article as it stood seemed to be less about "what the BSD licence *is*", and more about "why proponents of certain other licenses don't like it". Text of the old license with its 'advertising clause' was included twice in different locations within the article... while amazingly enough, the actual text of the current license as it has existed for a half-dozen years was not included at all!. My primary aim was to balance an objective explanation of the BSD license terms with a neutral overview of contraversy in its history. I realize what an emotional hot-button issue free software licensing can be, so please give me constructive feedback and discussion if you feel I may have gone too far in specific places to overcompensate for perceived non-NPOV writing.
    • I added a quote of the full current BSD license text to the Terms of the BSD license section. I removed the quote of the original BSD license's 'advertising clause', because I felt it to redundant considering the text of the entire original license containing that clause is already included.
    • I took bits and pieces of text about the BSD's relationship to proprietary software, and to GPL'ed software, and pulled them all together along with some original content in sections named Compatibility with proprietary software licenses and Compatibility with other free software licenses. This seemed like a more logical structure for organizing all that scattered information.
    • The advertising clause section had become a holding area for information about all variations in BSD-style licenses, both historical revisions to the official BSD as well as other people's derived variants. I thought it would be much more clean and logical to create a BSD-style licenses section discussing those variants together.
    • I thought it was redundant to give in two separate places the story about William Hoskins revoking the 'advertising clause', so I removed the version that was outside the section dealing with the subject. (Don't worry RMS, I didn't touch the edit that you personally added to take credit for that change single-handedly... NPOV aside for a moment, that was just too priceless to alter!).  :)
    • I made minor changes to correct factual errors. For instance, the previous text stated that a 2-clause BSD-style license was the "official license" for the KDE project. The policy page linked to on the KDE site makes it clear that this license is simply one of three choices that contributors can use, and even then applies only to one particular area of the KDE project.


  • The article states certain versions of the BSD license are functionally equivalent to the MIT and ISC license. Please explain this, since clause 2 of the BSD license explicitly talk about binary distributions and the other licenses don't. 84.179.201.32 21:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The other licenses don't make the distinction and talk about 'the software'. There were also two versions of the MIT license I think, one that talks about 'software' and one that talks about 'software and the supporting documentation'. Oh well. If my understanding of copyright is correct, it is in fact the two-clause and three-clause versions of the BSD license that are equivalent, because there is nothing else granting special rights to use the authors name as an endorsement anyway (but I'd love to be corrected on this). squell 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

==diff v public domain? so, what is the difference between giving something in public domain vs licencing it under the BSD licence? The article only says its 'closer' to this in comparison with the GPL, but doesnt explain further. --Aryah 16:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't the GNU document, "The BSD License Problem", outdated?

No, the document was updated by the GNU project on multiple occasions after the license was changed by the University of California in 1999. Additionally, the problem persists since some software is licensed with the original BSD license, including NetBSD.

[edit] Free Software Foundation about BSD licenses naming

And if you want to release a program as non-copylefted free software, please don't use the advertising clause. Instead of copying the BSD license from some released package--which might still have the old version of the license in it--please copy the license from X11.

You can also help spread awareness of the issue by not using the term "BSD-style", and not saying "the BSD license" which implies there is only one. You see, when people refer to all non-copyleft free software licenses as "BSD-style licenses", some new free software developer who wants to use a non-copyleft free software license might take for granted that the place to get it is from BSD. He or she might copy the license with the advertising clause, not by specific intention, just by chance.

If you would like to cite one specific example of a non-copyleft license, and you have no particular preference, please pick an example which has no particular problem. For instance, if you talk about "X11-style licenses", you will encourage people to copy the license from X11, which avoids the advertising clause for certain, rather than take a risk by randomly chosing one of the two BSD licenses.

When you want to refer specifically to one of the BSD licenses, please always state which one: the "original BSD license" or the "revised BSD license".

I think, X11 should be mentioned in this article, and FSF's point of view and license naming policy should be reflected here as well.

I think too. I came here after a search on forums software on wp (like phpBB, punBB, etc...). I get the page Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software. Some softwares are indicated to have a BSD license but it's very hard to know at the first look if that's the revised BSD license or the old with the advertising clause. At least, it should be possible to include enough information such as "X11-style (revised BSD license)" or something else to avoid confusion for users. Regards. 193.253.141.80 14:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeBSD additions to 2-clause version?

FreeBSD also uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.

Does this sentence have any grounding in fact at all? The sample license in the FreeBSD source tree appears to contain no text along these lines: Sample BSD license in FreeBSD source tree. This license file has not been changed in six years.

Yes, it does: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html --Mike 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terms belong here, not on wikisource

I removed the "move to wikisource" tag on the actual license text. Reproducing the (short) text here is, IMHO, as appropriate as having a picture of a person in an article about that person. It should stay. --Alvestrand 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New BSD License?

The OSI website and this article both reference the New BSD license, but they don't mention what's new about it. What's the difference? MrZaiustalk 07:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Permissive License?

Microsoft's Permissive License [1] looks like it should qualify for the BSD-style license list; any objections? --Piet Delport 11:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does — the patent-infringement clause, while possibly a Good Thing, is distinctly different from all the BSD and MIT styles of licenses. RossPatterson 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
How so? It seems to me that the clause is strictly orthogonal: it only limits the patent grant, which usual BSD-style licenses don't even provide to begin with.
(In other words, the MPL could be characterized as strictly BSD-style, plus the grant of a blanket royalty-free patent license (conditional on not suing the licensor for patent infringement). --Piet Delport 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you spend much time dealing with lawyers and software, it becomes clear pretty quickly. The "If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically." text changes the use of the code into something that requires a significant legal review. Organizations that have large arrays of patents tend to be really careful about anything involving limits on litigation. One of the key aspects of the BSD and X11 licenses has always been their extreme permissiveness. Whether you think that's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing is a different matter, but it is a major characteristic of them. RossPatterson 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That's my whole point: this license is more generous than the BSD/X11 licenses, and even if you litigate everyone, it merely reverts back to the same level of permissiveness as the BSD/X11 licenses.
In other words, it does not limit litigation any more than the BSD/X11 licenses do; it just says that if you choose to litigate, you lose the royalty-free patent license (and thus, have to start paying royalties just as you would be required to do anyway with other BSD/X11 licenses). --Piet Delport 11:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think you're wrong. The clause I cited is a penalty, and that makes the MPL dramatically different from the BSD and X11 licenses. It doesn't matter that the licensee actually receives more rights under the MPL, or how much the fallback position resembles the others. RossPatterson 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain where you think i'm wrong. The clause is not a "penalty": it's a conditional grant, just like the BSD/X11 licenses are conditional grants. And of course it matters how much the license resembles other BSD-style licenses: that's the point of a "BSD-style licenses" list! --Piet Delport 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can't see the penalty in the phrase "your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically", then I understand why you confuse these licenses. And if you can't see that there is a significant difference between a pair of licenses that grant nearly unrestricted rights without penalty and one that grants the same and more (patent licenses) with a no-counter-infringement clause, we're never going to get past this "You're wrong. No, you're wrong!" back and forth. There's nothing wrong with the Microsoft Permissive License — it might even be a better license — but it simply isn't a BSD or X11 equivalent. RossPatterson 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, and the BSD software license has exactly the same penalty if you don't meet its conditions.
The presence or absence of a penalty is not interesting: What matters are the conditions, and what the penalty itself applies to. In this case, as i previously mentioned, both are entirely orthogonal to the software license. That is to say, as far as software licensing is concerned, the MPL simply is exactly equivalent to the BSD/X11 licenses (more so than the advertising-clause-containing versions, if anything), no matter what you do.
If the patent clause did affect the software license in any way, i would have fully agreed with you, of course. --Piet Delport 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, i've added the entry. --Piet Delport 05:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RossPatterson: could you explain the addition[2] of "revokable"? The license does not allow contributors to revoke their grant. --Piet Delport 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Once again, it's the text "your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically" from the license. If you don't think that's a revocation, let's find the right term for it. RossPatterson 03:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"Conditional grant" should be the right term: revocation implies that the grantor can revoke it, which is not the case. --Piet Delport 13:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is all original research. If it is to go in the list, a cite saying it is based on or may be interpreted as the BSD license/permissive license should be found. What do Microsoft and the FSF officially say about? NicM 09:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
I've added a cite and used a quote from it. NicM 10:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
OK, now that's a significant difference from the BSD and X licenses, quite apart from all the foregoing discussion. Oddly enough, that puts it firmly in the GPL camp! Thanks for highlighting it. RossPatterson 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
How so? It has absolutely none of the GPL's copyleft features, and the retention clause is no different than the BSD license's own "Redistributions of source code must retain ... this list of conditions ...". --Piet Delport 13:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. It's clear you and I are at loggerheads here. I surrender. RossPatterson 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Wikipedia is not a fight or a competition. :)
All i'm saying is that the objections raised so far would disqualify the BSD licenses themselves from being BSD licenses. --Piet Delport 04:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What about taking out the "except that it prohibits re-licensing if the code is distributed in source code form"? No BSD-like license (not even MIT with its explicit sublicense clause) allows re-licensing the original work under a different license than intended by the author. Otherwise what's the point of having a license that protecs your copyright notice (among other things) if anybody can just change the license and remove the notice? It seems to me that MS-PL is no different than BSD in this respect. On the other hand, the patent grant and penalty clauses seem very worthy of mention. We can quote them verbatim (without commentary) until an authoritative reference can be found. --Etatoby 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the BSD license does permit re-licensing under a different license. In fact, the 4.2BSD TCP/IP stack was distributed under literally dozens of different licenses by folks who got it from Berkeley. As this article notes, "Works based on the material may even be released under a proprietary license (but still must maintain the license requirements)." RossPatterson 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping this Wikipedia article could clarify precisely this issue. As I read the BSD license, a right to distribute binaries under any license is granted, and redistribution of source code is not required. However, IF the source is distributed, then the full BSD license MUST be reproduced in the source code. Isn't this effectively the same as requiring the source code (possibly modified) to be redistributed under the BSD license?--Lasse Hillerøe Petersen 16:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia is a bad place to get legal advice :-) That said, read the BSD license text carefully. Then ask yourself, "If I received a program with this text attached to it, changed it, and sold it to someone for $100 with the additional requirement that they pay me $10 every time they sell or give it to someone else, would that be allowed?". If you answer "Yes," then ask yourself if the code is still "under the BSD license", or if you have changed the rules significantly. RossPatterson 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BSD code in Microsoft products

The article claims the "use of BSD networking code in Microsoft products" but where are the corresponding documents? The following discussion disproves this claim: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/pipermail/linuxsa/2004-February/065783.html So let us get the documents or delete this claim! Ento (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The winsock.h file contains text that disagrees with the random mailing-list comment which you found:
/* WINSOCK.H--definitions to be used with the WINSOCK.DLL   
 * Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.   
 *   
 * This header file corresponds to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets specifica>
 *   
 * This file includes parts which are Copyright (c) 1982-1986 Regents   
 * of the University of California.  All rights reserved.  The   
 * Berkeley Software License Agreement specifies the terms and   
 * conditions for redistribution.   
 *   
 */

So it's not as simple as that Tedickey (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)