Richard Stallman wrote:
But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.
Under the usual interpretation of the revised BSD license, this is
straightforward. You put the revised BSD license on your file, you
package it with the source of the GPL-covered library, and you release
it all. The combination, as a whole, is under the GNU GPL, but anyone can
use code from your file under the revised BSD license.
This is lawful because the revised BSD license permits users to
release the combination under the GPL.
Richard,
I am strongly stun by this statement from you. In short, should I
understand and read into this that no matter what, with all the ethics
emails you sent in the last few days and all the spirit of
collaborations and the big freedom talks, that no matter what, if anyone
in the GPL side find any applications under a BSD license and love it,
they would import it under GPL and add bug fix, may be new features and
what not and as such never appreciate what was gracefully given out of
good will and be as genuine about as to offer the bug fix upstream in
the same BSD spirit?
That's very important to me to fully understand from you, so please
respond to that please!
Regardless of our differences and goals and what not. We may disagree on
many things, but still I would expect that you would be as genuine as
the original Author for a complete software or application you find
useful to you and respect that Author wish to release under BSD and as
such keep your possible bug fix and feature additions under that same
BSD license, unless there is "HUGE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES", by witch I mean
more then 50% to take a number that could be somewhat justifiable to do
so may be, where in that case, releasing it under GPL, may be somewhat
acceptable, but I reserve my thoughts on the subject at the moment as I
sure can't come to peace with that just yet!
You always justify it by using that company would be allow to use it so
why not the GPL. The company are required to give credit and in the end
it may be all one would get, and that's fine.
But the biggest differences here that no one ever address in this
differences is what is the open source and why?
We want open source so that others can look at it and improve it and get
peer review! So, in the end the product improve in quality, stability,
security, etc. A company may have 1, 5, or 10 developers on staff, or
may be even 100, of thousands like Microsoft. So, many, sadly, wouldn't
contribute back. That's accepted.
But in the open source world, where we all benefit from huge amount of
eye balls and all fight for free code, I can't see why we couldn't all
share in the same spirit as the Author and if that Author decide to use
BSD, why not return him the favor and send bug fix under the BSD and
keep it as such.
We are talking two totally different world here between the corporate
world and the open source world.
If I release a software under BSD and you import it under GPL, put bug
fix in there and then release it publicly, I sure hell do see that as
fair as I have given it to you in the first place and I would expect you
as being a member of the open source community not to fight against me,
but collaborate with me and as such allow me to use your bug fix as an
example and include them in my software under BSD license as it was
originally release as to not lock myself out.
That's really the ethical question at stake I guess when you talk about
freedom for this code here. Using the corporation way of doing it as a
justification is wrong.
Don't you think someone release the code source of any application
he/she may write to actually benefit others and him/hereself as well by
benefiting of huge poll of eye balls!
You can't get that in any corporations at all, but sure sure can get
that on the Internet. I would even go as far as saying that someone
looking at your code in a corporation may, or may not be as incline to
make the final product as good as it could be, because of corporate
pressure, time limits, and what not. But someone on the Internet that
actually look at the code would do so, because of personal interest and
inclination to that code as well as most likely higher quality to
understand that code by choice, oppose to be force to do so. In that
case, the end result benefit all and that's how I see it.
If I release a software under a BSD license, I would expect you to send
bug fix and possible feature or what not upstream in appreciation of
what was given freely to you and as such a way from you to say thank you
for what was given to you in the first place and respecting my license
of choice.
Hope this help you understand, even if I have very limited hope you would.
Just consider it and see the reason why as well.
Best,
Daniel
