BSD family of licenses and consumer rights

[ralphbsz]

If we were depend entirely on copyright law, nobody, but the copyright holder, would be legally eligible to enforce.

This is actually an interesting issue in open source licenses, and the recent RedHat action (they will deliver the source code, but only to people who have a paid support contract, and those people are contractually prohibited from giving it to anyone else) demonstrates this. It's a very basic problem in law, namely "you and what army": While contracts and courts can say what needs to be done, ultimately it requires the real-world power of enforcement to make that actually happen. A good example is Marbury v. Madison: While the US Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide what can or has to be done within the US, it has no mechanism to actually force others (such as the executive) to do things.

Similarly. the BSD license doesn't explicitly say "you may receive source code", but does say "use in source form is permitted". This is enough to mean the licensee may receive source code.

The licensee may receive source code. They may also receive binaries. If they receive binaries, that does not imply that they are required to receive source code. They may ask for source code, but there is nothing in the license that says that the person holding the source code has to deliver it.

I fear that you continue to have a basic misunderstanding of the BSD license.

 

[OpenFreeNet]

Nowhere in the GPL there's something as "you may receive source code", yet the licensee is legally eligible to obtain the sources.

This is untrue. Section 6 of the GPL is completely dedicated to how release also source code. "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:..."

 

[Jose]

Software laws in Brazil were pretty wacky back in the day. That's why the Lua programming language exists, there were onerous burdens on "importing" software not developed in Brazil. However, even Lua is MIT-licensed nowadays.

 

[Alain De Vos]

Don't ride a sledge while drinking

 

[6502]

It isn't mandatory, unless one's making commercial profit. Licensees are legally eligible to redistribute and use in source form.

BSD license is very short. You can read it and try to find where it mentions "commercial profit".

 

[Krush206]

In BSD license, the rights of the "supplier" are not transitive: i.e. they are not transferred to the "consumer". In BSD the "supplier" has all the rights and nearly no obligation.

How do you say that when software is licensed? Nobody buys the software, but the license. The license says what the licensee can and cannot do in the software.

This is untrue. Section 6 of the GPL is completely dedicated to how release also source code. "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:..."

I wasn't referring to version 3, but to version 2. And even then, this clause presupposes one has access to the sources. The only place where "you may receive source code" is declared is in the preamble, and preambles aren't legally binding.

 

[OpenFreeNet]

I wasn't referring to version 3, but to version 2. And even then, this clause presupposes one has access to the sources. The only place where "you may receive source code" is declared is in the preamble, and preambles aren't legally binding.

In GPLv2 the section 3 is very clear and explicit about the fact that if you distribute a Program in object code or executable form, you must provide also the corresponding source code.

 

[Krush206]

Yes, the fourth clause does say the licensor is obliged to release the sources, but this is a duty imposed primarily on the licensor. If the licensor isn't making commercial profit, they aren't obliged to release the sources.

More explicitly, there's nothing saying "the licensee may obtain or ask for source code". Similarly, the BSD license doesn't explicitly say "the licensee may obtain or ask for source code", but does say "use in source and binary forms are permitted". This is an authorization or enabler for receiving the sources.

 

[bvdw78]

The BSD-license grants permission, no more. As a publisher of original BSD-licensed software, completely self-written, I am under zero obligation to anyone. The only thing I'm barred from, is to revoke the license on already-published copies. I also cannot claim infringement against anyone who complies with the clauses of the license. This is all equally valid under Brazilian law.

To bring the Brazilian consumer law into scope at all, I must be: a commercial entity, the user must be a consumer, and the software must be a product or service I provide. This implies an "agreement" in legal terms even if no money changes hands. But even given that this piece of legislation applies, it does *NOT* obligate me to provide anything to anyone beyond the initial agreed-upon transaction. The BSD-license gives the consumer permission to use my software, which can be fully satisfied as a requirement without source code: exhibits Windows and MacOS. The consumer is permitted to redistribute the binary they received under the conditions of the BSD-license outside of my control or consent. End of story.

This *ONLY* changes when I explicitly promise the consumer that they do have a right to receive source code beyond what is stipulated in the license. If I put something like a "Fully Open Source!!" sticker on the box, I'm implying things that I should own up to. If no such promise is made in the initial commercial offering, no source code distribution is mandatory and the consumer has no implicit right to demand any source code from me. If, at some point, I do enter into an agreement with this consumer and provide them with source code they themselves, in turn, are fully within their rights to redistribute that source code to others outside my control or consent.

I am in no way, shape or form obligated to enable your redistribution or to provide you with anything beyond the initial agreed-upon offer.

But hey.. go to court over this. I'd love to see the case run out in front of an actual judge.

 

[6502]

..

Why you continue to discuss topic which is far from your knowledge?

You want GPL and Linux. Go there, install Linux and enjoy GPL.

 

[assholehoff]

...

May I suggest you prove us all wrong by having a Brazilian court force SONY to disclose the source code for the PS5 software to you? Which you then, of course, would be free to share with all of us.

You will find the BSD license text under "Licenses" in the PlayStation software. (I don't have a PS5, but it's there on both PS3 and PS4.)

 

[OpenFreeNet]

Yes, the fourth clause does say the licensor is obliged to release the sources, but this is a duty imposed primarily on the licensor. If the licensor isn't making commercial profit, they aren't obliged to release the sources.

More explicitly, there's nothing saying "the licensee may obtain or ask for source code". Similarly, the BSD license doesn't explicitly say "the licensee may obtain or ask for source code", but does say "use in source and binary forms are permitted". This is an authorization or enabler for receiving the sources.

A LICENSE cannot directly oblige anyone to release the source code (or other actions), because it is not a law. It grants permissions to use a copyrighted product according the terms described in the LICENSE. Who does not respect these terms, loose the rights to use the product, hence they are violating copyright laws (that are rather common in all nations), and they can be sued only from the copyright holders. The effective implications will be decided by the laws of the nations where they are sued, not from the LICENSE.

So what BSD or GPL are saying is something like: "if you respect these terms, you have all the rights to use this product, and we cannot sue you."

This situation can improve, if nations create an explicit legal recognition of copyleft license like GPL and they recognize the access to the source-code has a right of the users of the product. In this way anyone interested to the source code can sue a company, and not only the copyright holders.

But I cannot see how this is a problem for BSD, or what is your point...

 

[ralphbsz]

Nobody buys the software, but the license. The license says what the licensee can and cannot do in the software.

If licenses are sold, there has been a lot of cheating! I regularly see software being sold for very large amounts, and I'm sure the buyer is receiving way more than a copy of the license.

Indeed, the license governs the behavior of the licensor and licensee. Or at least it should. Alas, the BSD license does not do what you think it does. And BSD-licensed software is rarely sold (although doing so is legal). Instead, BSD-licensed software is either freely downloaded (for example the OS we discuss in this forum), or it is part of a larger system (like a NetApp storage server, or a Jupiter network router) which is sold for lots of money.

Old anecdote: About 25 years ago, my wife and I were building our house. At the same time, I was working as a software engineer and researcher at a big company. Our company had just bought 15 or 20 copies of "Rational Rose", the OOA&D tool kit for our group; they cost about $20-30K each. When I needed cardboard boxes for home, I would just take empty boxes from the office. So one day, as we were packing something like cheap electrical or plumbing parts into a cardboard box, I looked at the box, and it had a sticker from our purchasing and receiving department: It had contained the copies of Rational Rose we had bought, and had a value that was larger than the cost of building our house, over a quarter million $. I should have saved that box in my department of historical artifacts.