gpl vs. bsd-license

i think the gpl for the qt programs are not necessary.

http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs ... .html#q112 (http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gpl.html#q112)

"Can I make software with the Qt Open Source Edition and release it under the GNU GPL, BSD, or Artistic license?
Yes. The GNU GPL, GPL-compatible licenses, or any other approved open source license will do. The FSF.org and OpenSource.org web sites list approved software licenses."

what do you think about this?

[dean_fry]

yeah we also figured that out in this thread:

http://www.pcbsd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=385

i wonder what kris thinks about it...

[Charles]

I agree that BSD would be cool, but there's one thing, correct me if I'm mistaken: Using BSD, you can't sell PC-BSD licenses to companies that want to change the source code and re-sell it, can you?

Other than that, if you use the GNU GPL, companies that want to enhance/modify the source code need to either let the new code open-source, or they need to pay a license fee.

This is more or less what happens with MySQL and Trolltech :roll:

[jamiefoxer]

If this is true, Kris should definitely change the license to BSD. A lot of "purist" BSDers have looked upon PC-BSD with disdain purely on the GPL issue. Although most agree that having a Desktop BSD would be good for advocating BSD and its strengths, the GPL aspects of PC-BSD are turning them off. Why alienate potential advocates if we can change our license to one that conforms to their license ideals?

If possible, we should change to BSD license.

[dean_fry]

...GPL aspects of PC-BSD are turning them off.


thats true!! they just read the gpl stuff and deny to test pcbsd...
i was ripped apart in some forums for that :(

[manofsteel]

Doesnt the GPL offer more freedom? someone please correct me if I'm wrong, who doesnt like more freedom?

[DrJ]

That depends on your definition of freedom.

The BSD license says that you can do anything you want with the code -- incorporate it into your proprietary products, modify it, sell it -- anything, as long as proper attribution is given. There are no other restrictions.

The GPL requires that any changes you make to GPLed code, or any code you write that includes GPLed code are then also released under the GPL. It requires the source to what you do is also to be made available, and it can get rather viral. Many companies won't touch GPLed code because it can infect their products.

Note that none of these say anything about resale. You are free to sell them as a product, or as part of a service. It is about the availability of the source code.

This is oversimplified, but it is the general gist.

Now, which do you think is more free?

DrJ

[manofsteel]

it sounds like you can take BSD code and make it propiratary, all you have to do is give them credit. Also what do you mean by Viral?

[DrJ]

That's right. Microsoft, for example, uses the BSD TCP/IP stack in its products. Look for the credit on booting.

By "viral" I mean that use of GPL code can infect what you write, and it can propogate back through other modules or programs that you have written. It spreads like a virus, infecting everything it touches.

Now Stallman believes that code should be available for every piece of software. That's fine for OSS stuff. It does mean that proprietary software companies avoid it like the plague. And it is one reason that the *BSDs don't like GPLed code. Why add a more restrictive license on the whole of the system? That's the concern.

DrJ

[manofsteel]

Ahh, I see now, thank you for taking the time to explain to me, the only concern I would have with the BSD license would be someone else copy righting software that isnt theirs and we cant get it back, is this a concern or is there a way to combat this?

[DrJ]

Nope. No company can copyright something that is not theirs to copyright. They can copyright their new work, but the BSD portion is already copyrighted by *BSD (or whoever it is that holds the copyright -- it could be Kris, for example) under terms of the BSD license.

DrJ

[manofsteel]

Makes a lot of sense now and actually sounds good.

[Charles]

The next release will be distributed under the terms of the BSD license 8)

[dean_fry]

:D

hopefully the freebsd team adopts some of pcbsd's cool tools ;)

[Charles]

Yes, I was thinking about it. I think they should, or maybe they're too proud to fall into user-friendly computing :roll:

[manofsteel]

So then is there any way to bring GPL'd projects to PCBSD? I mean really Linux Devs have done a lot of the work, all one would have to do is port the code somehow, :( wish i had programming skills.

[Charles]

The only way, AFAIK to convert GNU GPL code into BSD licenced code is having the acceptation from the software vendor. One can't release GNU GPL code to another license.

In the case of PC-BSD, the only problem was KDE and Qt which are release under GNU GPL and commercial licenses. But apprently, from their web site, they say that you can use their software in open-source project and re-release it under another open-source license...Including BSD! :D

[manofsteel]

But if you import a GPL'd project why not just keep it GPL'd?