-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25/05/10 13:21, Samuli Seppänen wrote: [...snip...] >> Something which makes me wonder ... >> >> * Developer would have to use the BSD license for the bounty features >> o This would allow the project to relicense the code under GPLv2 >> (while mentioning the original author) >> >> Does this mean that we can take the BSD contributed code and publish it >> as GPL in OpenVPN? Just like that (while maintaining the original >> author)? If so, what is the point of enforcing BSD on the contribution? >> As OpenVPN is GPLv2 licensed, we need to provide the source code. > I _think_ relicensing BSD-licensed code under GPLv2 is possible. For > example, I believe the ath5k wireless driver (in Linux kernel) is based > on OpenBSD kernel code.
This is my understanding at too. You can relicense BSD material into whatever license you prefer, but you cannot re-license GPL easily without agreement from all who contributed to the vast majority of the GPL based code. Another explanation of the BSD license: <http://pthree.org/2007/08/08/bsd-license-explained-in-layman-terms/> Relicensing is discussed in the comments: "@Joseph Scott- Yes. Any BSD-licensed derivative can be relicensed. I am not granted the right to change the BSD-licensed software itself, only derivative works." >> o This would allow both developer (payee) and payer to use the code >> any way they wish >> >> Is it likely that someone who pays for a feature to be included into >> OpenVPN - and then would do something extra "magic" with it, throw out >> the original patch and replace it with their changes? They can anyway >> not distribute this software unless providing the source code with these >> changes. > The discussion in the meeting revolved around who owns the code (payee > or payer). BSD license would allow all parties (payee, payer, OpenVPN > project) use the code the way they want. However, I think the cases > where BSD license (=do as you please with the code) would provide real > benefits to GPLv2 are rare. In those cases, it's always possible for the > developer and payer to arrange copyright issues between themselves. Agreed! >> You can argue that it's a company specific change and that the software >> is not distributed - but the employees in that company do get this >> software somehow - most often as verbatim copy, and these employees can >> then internally request the source code according to the GPL license. >> Since the GPL is so restrictive, this modified source code cannot be >> distributed (even though internally) with even an NDA. In the moment >> you copy this change from one place to another place, it is technically >> speaking a form of distribution. >> >> In this context a BSD license does not make sense to me. OpenVPN is >> GPLed, and any modifications done to OpenVPN needs to be shared and to >> be made available in source code format on request. >> >> Personally, I would also not enforce BSD as the only license for >> bounties. We need to provide at least a choice, at least between GPL >> and BSD. > I'm starting to lean towards GPLv2 only. I don't think BSD license > provides any _real_ benefits to the developer or payer. The theoretical > benefits ("use the code as you please") are negated by the fact that > extending a GPLv2-licensed application imposes restrictions on > distribution of the code. Also, most OpenVPN code is useless outside > OpenVPN so there's little value in being able to do "whatever you > please" with it. This is exactly my core point. >> I would not consider to license my contributions to OpenVPN as BSD, >> because a) I want other people to be able to review my code at any >> point, no matter the circumstances the code is used, and b) If someone >> modifies/improves the code, I want these changes to be shared with the >> community. GPL gives that possibility. > Here we come into the religious issues ;). Just a reminder, this paragraph is my personal attitude to BSD license and OpenVPN in general. It was not intended to be a strong signal of which direction I want to see in this bounty discussion - merely just a reference point. > I prefer GPLv2/3 in most > cases, as it protects the freedom of the code, rather than freedom to > use the code as you please (like BSD-style licenses). Both protect the > freedom of the users - from different angles. Both have their uses and I > don't think discussing their relative merits or the definition of > freedom in detail makes much sense. > > Anyways, in our context I don't see any/many benefits in using > BSD-license for the contributions. Agreed! I don't think BSD is a bad license or not appropriate at all. I just feel that in OpenVPN context a BSD license on "bounty code" do not provide any clear benefits for any parts. There are other situations where BSD is a better suited license than GPL. kind regards, David Sommerseth -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkv7yM8ACgkQDC186MBRfroXHwCcD5dMo5Jh28/UnnPgq/NVEoma 5mEAn0dJ/gMRzis78CyRKerzQWSoBDS8 =rG3m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
