| |||||||||||
Would BSD license become GPL?Would BSD license become GPL?Posted Dec 23, 2003 4:49 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104)Parent article: The Free Software Act (Groklaw)
1d. The right to modify the program for any reasonI wonder what becomes of non-free software derived from BSD-licensed programs, should this act be passed. Either the BSD license becomes equivalent to GPL, or the distibutors will be allowed to "opt out" from free software protection, which would make the Free Software Act useless. The real concern is that any law regulating free software (no matter how well written) will be amended before adoption and may become dangerous to free software instead of protecting it.
(Log in to post comments)
Would BSD license become GPL? Posted Dec 23, 2003 7:29 UTC (Tue) by zakaelri (guest, #17928) [Link] It seems at first glance that the Free Software Act would prevent BSD-style licenses from working anymore. However, there is no line in here that prevents derivative works (which is what the proprietary app would be) from using an alternate license. In other words, this seems to be something that is left to the particulars of each license to dictate. It seems to serve the purpose of placing open source licenses in the realm of the Act itself, not in copyright law... or possibly just placing the bulk of most FL/OSS licenses into an all-encompassing law, instead of in the body of the licence itself. Now, of course, if a person or corporation decides to use a license that is contradictory to the terms set forth in section 1: 1. Free software guarantees the following freedoms to its users, copiers, modifiers,
distributors and any other beneficiaries of free software: Then he would not be distributing an application that qualifies under this bill, and then his program (persuant to the terms of whatever license the original program had) would be covered under `normal' copyright law, and (in addition) would not be given the protections listed in section 4: 4. Exemptions from liability:
My hypothesis is further supported by section 5: 5. Users, copiers, modifiers, distributors and any other beneficiaries of free software are bound by the contractual conditions of any licence or licences which apply to the program or programs they use. It would seem that, then, if the license says `I offer this gratis' then you can go ahead and take it (as is done with BSD licenses, if I have my facts straight. While on the surface it seems like a great law to pass, I believe that certain legislatures around the world would not pass this act. Everything that it states is already covered by licenses, so why bother? (This would be their justification, IMHO. I, however, feel it would be awesome if the law was passed.) Furthermore, I can see several companies (and therefore their lobbyists) protesting certain portions of this bill, most notably those that prevent them from enforcing their copyrights as stringently as possible. I do know that the purposes of this Act include exactly what I stated above. I am just pointing out that this is going to make the Act a controversial issue, at least in the US. BTW: IANAL, or a politition by any means... or a spelling wizard, for that matter... and this post was definitely a long one.
Would BSD license become GPL? Posted Dec 23, 2003 9:27 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think article 2 may prevent opt-out. It could be argued in court that derived software is free software in modified form.
Would BSD license become GPL? Posted Feb 8, 2005 6:16 UTC (Tue) by zakaelri (guest, #17928) [Link] The point I was attempting to illustrate was that the BSD would not beforced to become GPL-esque if the act was passed. By declaring itself "more free" than is stipulated by the act, BSD would forfeit all claims to protection provided by the act.
|
|||||||||||