BSD licensing

J

jcizzo

Hey folks,

i'm an absolute novice when it comes to freebsd. never installed the base OS. my experience with it is through pfsense. that will change in time however (meaning, when resources become available, i will set up a freebsd box to learn on).

that being said. BSD is incredible. Hats off to the engineers.

here's my question; if the xBSD's are open source, in an effort to protect it, why isnt the BSD license amended to be more like the gnu gpl? my reasoning is that there are companies like netgate and opnsense that, while it's great they're huge contributors, they're ultimately creating a product to profit from the work of the original design. Yes, FreeBSD is available to all, however products like pfsense are slowly and quietly going down the path of making it proprietary. I would still want to see Berkley as the custodian and engineer behind it, and to continually scrutinize the source to maintain its excellence, however no one should have the right to take said source and hijack it to be sold as their own for profit. again, it hasn't happened yet, but it's quietly going down that path..

There are many folks (like me) in the community who are concerned that the xBSDs will ultimately be commandeered by 3rd parties and we'll lose the base product. apparently it's a known fact that microsoft took much of the source of the freeBSD tcp/ip stack and used it in windows NT+..

sorry, very long winded question/rant by a concerned citizen of this community.

comment?
 
jcizzo said:
if the xBSD's are open source, in an effort to protect it, why isnt the BSD license amended to be more like the gnu gpl?
Click to expand...
Why do you think only the GPL can protect it? The BSD license protects it just fine.

jcizzo said:
they're ultimately creating a product to profit from the work of the original design.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they have every right to do that because the BSD license allows this.

jcizzo said:
I would still want to see Berkley as the custodian and engineer behind it,
Click to expand...
Berkeley hasn't been involved in the development of BSD (Free, Open or Net) for many, many years. The FreeBSD foundation owns and maintains FreeBSD;

jcizzo said:
and to continually scrutinize the source to maintain its excellence
Click to expand...

About the Foundation – FreeBSD Foundation

freebsdfoundation.org freebsdfoundation.org

jcizzo said:
however no one should have the right to take said source and hijack it to be sold as their own for profit.
Click to expand...
Kind of limiting isn't it? You know what the cool thing about freedom is? To do whatever you want with it, including taking the code, building a product with it and then selling it.

jcizzo said:
it hasn't happened yet
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Because JunOS (Juniper firewalls/routers) is based on BSD. Cisco's original IOS was based on BSD. Citrix Netscalers are based on BSD. OS-X borrowed many parts from BSD. I can probably name a whole bunch of other products that are (at least partially) based on BSD.

jcizzo said:
There are many folks (like me) in the community who are concerned that the xBSDs will ultimately be commandeered by 3rd parties and we'll lose the base product.
Click to expand...
The FreeBSD foundation has a different opinion.
 
Hello & Welcome to this FreeBSD community!

I think SirDice covered this pretty well. I'll just leave a few more remarks here.

jcizzo said:
There are many folks (like me) in the community who are concerned that the xBSDs will ultimately be commandeered by 3rd parties and we'll lose the base product.
Click to expand...
I'd say exactly the opposite is the case. As far as I can tell (personal opinion), what you're describing is what's happening over in the Linux world. Due to the more restrictive licensing, commercial entities have to resort to other means to gain influence and control. This is heavily showing in both the direction Linux is heading as well as the trend of quality over time.
In the meantime, BSD licensed products remain unaffected by these corporate measures because they are allowed to just use it for whatever purpose they see fit. There's no need for commercial entities to resort to those measures.

I'd also like to add that plenty of commercial entities which take part(s) of (Free)BSD are heavily contributing back to the code base. Just have a look at the various direct financial sponsorings/fundings and contributed code. Based on my business experience it's also easier for larger entities to put resources back into a BSD licensed project than an (L)GPL licensed project (partly due to legal reasons, partly due to business politics).
The list is quite long but these include entities like Sony, Nintendo, Netflilx, CISCO, Juniper Networks, iXsystems and many, many more including also many smaller commercial entities.

Using BSD licensed software for commercial aspects is something I'd consider to be endorsed. It helps to keep projects alive, omits the need for "questionable measures" to be employed by commerical/corporate entities and makes the software/projects more stable as a result.

The day when (Free)BSD changes the licensing to something more restrictive might actually be the day when (Free)BSD is dying for real.
 
jcizzo said:
Hey folks,
i'm an absolute novice when it comes to freebsd. never installed the base OS. my experience with it is through pfsense. that will change in time however (meaning, when resources become available, i will set up a freebsd box to learn on).

that being said. BSD is incredible. Hats off to the engineers.
Click to expand...
you come here to tell us how we should run our system man if i were you. would really analyze the GNU GPL license is not something I would adopt in a software development, the engineers don't like this license very much that's why today in Linux you are manipulated, as if it were something normal.

I'm against some issues of the GNU GPL license, a form that involves a lot of politics on how you should develop your software. today systemd takes half of your linux distributions, and you still come here. criticizes us for our BSD license.

systemd is in most of your linux distributions, and the most rated by the community Debian, Arch Linux and others
 
It almost feels like the OP is trolling....
Software. Patents. Copyright. Licensing. All discussed for a long time. Some folks have absolute stances: all software is free. Others have: I own what I wrote but can freely give it away.
Difficult to get a consensus at time.

Now, me personally, I like the BSD license (and others that are similar). No legal hook "you must make your modifications available to the community" (simplistically what the GPL is), but "Heres the code, no support from me, you can use it, make products to sell, just make sure you don't claim it as your own" (simplistically the BSD).
My experience has been that companies will freely push changes upstream when they can sell product based on it.
 
GPL takes over BSD licensed code all the time, then it becomes locked from companies to profit off of.

The whole thing about opensource licenses seems to be a paradox to me. GPL is too viral, and it contributes to piling on, because there's less motivation to improve things. I also understand the argument that a lot of companies take, but give back very little. I have to think about BSD, ISCL or MIT licenses like water, it's free for everyone, and anyone can drink it, make their own juice out of it, or a company can make a proprietary drink or brand out of it. It makes sense for libraries, backends, small programs, moderately sized programs, software foundations and common applications.

One problem where GPL isn't how it's made out to be is, a company dual licenses software in GPL, and they are allowed to get all contributions from that piece of code, while others can't. In some cases, that's beneficial to the opensource community, as the company wrote most of it from the beginning, and has a business model that helps other companies. This exception is in the spirit of opensource when a code is dual licensed to be both opensource and proprietary, but other cases aren't in the spirit of GPL-like arguments relating to how companies shouldn't benefit. Another company can dual license an addition to that GPL code which wouldn't be dualy owned by another company. They would benefit from the common GPL code, but keep their own sets which can be used together, to be improved without giving it away.

It seems like the Apache license is good. I was thinking what if there a clone of LGPL for libraries compatible with LGPL, for the purposes of it be not named containing the acronym "GPL". This would be necessary to make it fully compatible with LGPL to not have to have duplicate code which provides the same function for GPL, BSD and other opensource code which relies on it as dependencies. Then, have another license like LGPL, except that it's restricted to be taken over by more restrictive licenses like the GPL, intended for software even parts of software that aren't libraries. It could be linked to by proprietary and opensource code that allows it, but can't be taken over by any of them.

One thing that was lacking in many opensource licenses was a clause to prevent software from being taken into more restrictive opensource licenses. There were clauses for how to address proprietary: whether to fully allow, restrict it, or to focus on protecting opensource from patent trolls.

I have this worry that there's opensource code, which is in BSD, MIT or ISC, that a proprietary company or GPL will take it, add a literal exclamation point inside the code, and say, opp, you can't use this for the less restrictive opensource license anymore. I realize that they can't really restrict it, because ad minimis can't be copyrighted nor patented. The worry is still there for me, for what's an obvious improvement made under a more restrictive code will prevent the original code license from using.
jcizzo said:
no one should have the right to take said source and hijack it to be sold as their own for profit
Click to expand...
It seems like BSD-like licensed code gets hijacked a lot by GPL as well as the obvious, proprietary companies. Someone could remind me of an argument that BSD/MIT licenses are made for that, which I somewhat agree on but don't fully agree with. The closet I can come up with allowing free code is in what I wrote above.

Edits: BSD, MIT, ISC licenses make sense for libraries, backends, small programs, moderately sized programs, software foundations and common applications. It also makes sense for programs which aren't too big that 1, 2 or a small group of people are able to write and maintain it. Or also for organizations like Xorg or FreeBSD. Big projects like complex games, they make sense as GPL.
 
In the case of BSD license hijacking by GPL, isn't it only the additions covered by GPL? Otherwise the new GPL licensees would need to get approval from all the BSD copyright owners/licensees to switch everything over to GPL.
 
They obviously don't take the rights away from the original. Though, they did release the exact same code under the GPL. This is easy to get lost, as they preserve the exact code as GPL. The original with the original more free licenses have to be preserved. Many authors already do that, and copyright or maintain the whole code. They hijack the movement to putting everything into some shit SystemD pile. It's still hijacking, and in the form of what was written about in the first post.
sidetone said:
I have this worry that there's opensource code, which is in BSD, MIT or ISC, that a proprietary company or GPL will take it, add a literal exclamation point inside the code, and say, opp, you can't use this for the less restrictive opensource license anymore. I realize that they can't really restrict it, because ad minimis can't be copyrighted nor patented. The worry is still there for me, for what's an obvious improvement made under a more restrictive code will prevent the original code license from using.
Click to expand...
No one said, they are allowed to prevent, someone from using the BSD code as it was last written. But in effect, what I said above, is like them doing that, and that will happen if the last original isn't preserved as BSD, which I haven't noticed GPL do for what they use. Maybe they do, but it doesn't seem prioritized at all. Also, they do hijack it in the sense of pulling it in and making it into a SystemD system or other convoluted shit. I feel like you respond to what stands out, and end up ignoring everything else.
 
Now, it seems that, if GPL is allowed to take BSD-like licensed code, which for many cases I agree with, they should be required to preserve or link to a copy for public access of all of pieces of original BSD code they used. In a customized license, if that copy of sourcecode gets lost by them or the link they use, then that BSD-like code is void for them. In spirit, the BSD license is there, but there's hardly preservation of what wasn't non-GPL by them. It seems like, the BSD stamp gets replaced by the GPL stamp, and the assumption is that because it's opensource, it's ok to not preserve the first stamp as the differentation of the original and the GPL code. The adjusted license can take over all of MIT/BSD/ISC code, just as GPL takes over other code. GPL can use it, but if it's inconvenient, so taking BSD code was convenient.

It seems like major GPL projects need to have the responsibility of having a GIT repository of all BSD code ever incorporated into GPL code. Github seems to do some of this already, when forks are preserved. GPL isn't required to, but it seems like preserving the last BSD licensed code should be forced by a new license or they'll plainly abandon it, as GPL abandoned/discouraged CDDL, even though it's BSD-like, that they just didn't like it because it was too open for GPL. Such a license couldn't be forced retroactively, however.
 
jcizzo said:
… sorry, very long winded question …
Click to expand...

Welcome to FreeBSD Forums … where long-winded is not unusual :)

FreeBSD Foundation​

SirDice said:
… The FreeBSD foundation owns and maintains FreeBSD; …
Click to expand...

I never thought of the Foundation as owning or maintaining FreeBSD, in that FreeBSD source code is open source.

Instead:
From 2001: The FreeBSD Foundation -- an introduction

FreeBSD Project​

Beyond the obvious <https://www.freebsd.org/about/>, there's this:

www.freebsd.org

FreeBSD Project Administration and Management

FreeBSD is an operating system used to power modern servers, desktops, and embedded platforms.
www.freebsd.org www.freebsd.org

forums.freebsd.org

FreeBSD Project organisation

Spun off from From FreeBSD source code: I'll probably overwrite the chart above with an updated version in due course. FreeBSD bug 263300 – FreeBSD administration: update the organization.dot organisational chart
forums.freebsd.org forums.freebsd.org
 
jcizzo said:
however no one should have the right to take said source and hijack it to be sold as their own for profit.
Click to expand...

First off, I'm not attacking your beliefs, just challenging them.

This sentiment you hold seems endemic in the *linux community, at least from afar. This is primarily because they believe their licensing system is perfection itself; it is not. Why?

The idea that you can be affronted by a licence for code you did not write baffles me. Truly.

If I want to release source code in the public domain then why can't I? If someone exploits that code, isn't it purely my choice?
Similarly, if I want to release the code with a "all rights reserved" I could easily do it.

A licence is just that, a licence and BSD-style licences are just permissive in their downstream usage. No matter what someone does with my code, the code belongs to ME. You can take it, put it with some proprietary code but you never own the code. You cannot remove the licence from it because it says not to. Ultimately, people trust others to do the correct thing. They may not, but ultimately, we don't really care because it's BSD-style.



jcizzo said:
again, it hasn't happened yet, but it's quietly going down that path..
Click to expand...

It has happened. There's plenty of examples, some not public, where software from FreeBSD (and indeed Net and Open) have been used to make everything from customised server platforms to embedded systems. Often code is not returned upstream, but, this is part of having a permissive licence.

Cheers

Fynin Hxenvar
 
6502 said:
Open source does not mean that random people develop FreeBSD and it is out of control.
Click to expand...

Did someone suggest randomness or things being out of control? (I didn't.)


Postscript: I don't know where BG is (6502's location), but maybe there's a language difference.

To me, out of control implies something intolerable. Like, an out-of-control child might be the result of bad parenting; or a good parent might be close to a nervous breakdown as a result of the child's bad behaviour.
 
If I have understood correctly, the assertion is that Foundation is not owning or maintaining FreeBSD *because* it is open source. I.e. they have no control and FreeBSD is maintained by everybody who wants (random people). It can be modified by everybody for own needs but this is not maintenance of product. And Foundation has copyright on many modules, not only a trademark. Which means it owns FreeBSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mer
6502 said:
If I have understood correctly, the assertion is that Foundation is not owning or maintaining FreeBSD *because* it is open source. I.e. they have no control and FreeBSD is maintained by everybody who wants (random people). It can be modified by everybody for own needs but this is not maintenance of product. And Foundation has copyright on many modules, not only a trademark. Which means it owns FreeBSD.
Click to expand...
*alert* *alert* licence confusion... but, well you're sort of correct.
FreeBSD foundation owns the logo, name etc and funds the project with tax dodge exemption. You're right that they have no control, directly as that is the role of Core.
They do have, however, some control in that they pick the funding, albeit again with Core's direction, for various projects.

Code copyright is that of the authors or, in the case of a lot of old code, like in bin, sbin etc, it's the Regents of UC. FreeBSD Foundation has no copyright of code, to my knowledge. I would be aghast if they did.

Anyone can take the code and create a new OS and call it, say GhostBSD, but if they call it FreeBSD-plus, for example, then they'll have lawyers at their door.
 
mark_j said:
Anyone can take the code and create a new OS and call it, say GhostBSD, but if they call it FreeBSD-plus, for example, then they'll have lawyers at their door.
Click to expand...
Clearly you're not familiar with today's marketing wank. It would be: "FreeBSD PRO" 😜
 
jcizzo said:
There are many folks (like me) in the community who are concerned that the xBSDs will ultimately be commandeered by 3rd parties and we'll lose the base product
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is what constitutes "commandeered." Nobody can just "take" FreeBSD, never release the code, and somehow get everybody to switch to it without constant maintenance or community goodwill. People have tried to fork FreeBSD and make a "better" version all the time and fail due to lack of manpower, and that's with keeping the same license on the new code. Apple took a bunch of FreeBSD code to slap on to their proprietary OS and it takes a bunch of work on their part to keep it updated, yet FreeBSD hasn't "lost" the base product.
 
6502 said:
What this means:

Copyright 1992-2022 The FreeBSD Project
Click to expand...

<https://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license/> – The FreeBSD Copyright – is one of a number of pages relating to copyright; <https://www.freebsd.org/copyright/>.

From the foot of the page:

Legal Notices | © 1995-2022 The FreeBSD Project All rights reserved. The mark FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation and is used by The FreeBSD Project with the permission of The FreeBSD Foundation. Contact
Click to expand...

An example of FreeBSD Copyright in context, in source code: <https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/sys/copyright.h#n4>

* Copyright (C) 1992-2022 The FreeBSD Project. All rights reserved.

2022-01-01: Welcome 2022, update copyrights.

2022-02-18: vtfontcvt: update FreeBSD Foundation copyrights

… and so on.


Incidentally 6502 please, where is BG (your location)? The forum takes us from <https://forums.freebsd.org/misc/location-info?location=BG> through Google Maps to nowhere predictable … amusingly, you're currently at a Microsoft Campus bus stop near the River Thames, which is nowhere near me –

1650029646412.png
1650030552015.png

– and probably nowhere near you :)

If you're in Bulgaria, <https://forums.freebsd.org/misc/location-info?location=Bulgaria> will be better (and I'll be somewhere in Bulgaria in August).
 
This should be a FAQ question. It probably already is. The BSD license is specifically designed to provide the shortest possible legal text allowing programmers to dump the source code into whatever good/evil/free/proprietary project they want whenever they feel like it. It's an ultimate "fuck off" license without any agenda whatsoever. That's precisely why we like it here.
 
mer said:
It almost feels like the OP is trolling....
Software. Patents. Copyright. Licensing. All discussed for a long time. Some folks have absolute stances: all software is free. Others have: I own what I wrote but can freely give it away.
Difficult to get a consensus at time.

Now, me personally, I like the BSD license (and others that are similar). No legal hook "you must make your modifications available to the community" (simplistically what the GPL is), but "Heres the code, no support from me, you can use it, make products to sell, just make sure you don't claim it as your own" (simplistically the BSD).
My experience has been that companies will freely push changes upstream when they can sell product based on it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top