Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 5, 2007 16:53 UTC (Wed) by dag- (guest, #30207)
In reply to: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right by nofutureuk
Parent article: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

... there are many reasons for choosing a license none will match the exact ethical expectations, which is why I often chose BSD or MIT license, because I want to able to re-use my own stuff at work, while still allowing it to be used by GPL people. GPL people are not that liberal, they are simply very often overzealous.

I find your logic and conclusion/opinion very concerning.

You say that it is logically/ethically the correct decision that you contribute changes to someone else's codebase. If I would expect that, I would put that requirement in the license (ie. choose GPL).

However, you then say that you choose the BSD license so that you can reuse the same stuff you wrote at work. Now, the stuff you write yourself is never the problem, even with GPL you are the copyright owner and you can do what you like.

So the problem is using someone else's 'stuff' at work, right ? So you prefer that other people use the BSD license so one has the liberty to use their code at one's company, modify it, distribute it without the requirement that any changes have to go back. Even when that is the most ethical behaviour, there is no requirement to do so and this liberty is why the BSD license is more liberal.

The liberty you see in the BSD license is exactly what you denounce when you *see* someone use that liberty. And the ethical behaviour you expect goes only so far as you can see, companies do it behind doors and you don't mind, in fact you celebrate the same liberty ! Why can't Open Source people not use that same liberty you use at work ?

The only reason I can see for this different behaviour against the Linux community and the proprietary corporations, is that you see the Linux community as real competition for your project, while the corporate interest (and non-contribution) does not directly compete within the larger Open Source development community.

And I am not saying you don't have the right to choose what license you choose for your own code, not at all. I find it concerning that you have conflicting expectations for other Open Source communities and corporations. What is good for the goose is apparently not good enough for the gander.

to post comments

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 5, 2007 17:49 UTC (Wed) by nofutureuk (subscriber, #3116) [Link] (1 responses)

You say that it is logically/ethically the correct decision that you contribute changes to someone else's codebase. If I would expect that, I would put that requirement in the license (ie. choose GPL).

I said before that forcing other people into adopting ones ethical view-point in legal terms, is something that can be avoided. There is a difference between ethics and law.

However, you then say that you choose the BSD license so that you can reuse the same stuff you wrote at work. Now, the stuff you write yourself is never the problem, even with GPL you are the copyright owner and you can do what you like.

Right, my example is wrong. Sorry ;-)

So you prefer that other people use the BSD license so one has the liberty to use their code at one's company, modify it, distribute it without the requirement that any changes have to go back.

Ok, consider I publish code with GPL license and somebody sends me a patch to fix/enhance something. Will I be allowed to re-use that patch in a closed environment in my company? I mean, open-sourcing your own code is about solving a problem you have and hoping that others have the same problem and therefore they will hopefully help minimize your own work. It really is about being lazy in the first place (at least to me, that again is not something I would want to push on others).

I don't denounce people using the liberty of re-using code, but I denounce people saying that the BSD people should shut up when they feel ripped off. I also denounce people who replace licenses without agreement (although in this case, it was probably right, but I said "people").
Also, I see there is competition, yes, but that's just fine. Competition always helps improve the overall result.

At work, one is not allowed to relicense the source-code. That is not a liberty unless agreed with all parties.

In general terms, having conflicting expectations is perfectly normal. It really depends on the context. You cannot have absolute expectations in a world full of relativity.

My point is that other people are falling back into lame "legality" discussions, whereas this whole topic factually is much more about the very reasons of existence of open-source software and liberal licensing schemes:

Why does one open-source code (not hide it)?
Why does one allow others to re-use it?
... etc.

Also note that everybody's perception certainly has an influence on what we see happen and what we don't see happen. I mean, I am not reading LKML on any sort of regular basis... so I want to make sure that my concern is not at all about Linux people or all GPL people, but pure and only about those people that try to re-use these kind of moments (the patch above) to push their propaganda for the "right" license. That's something that does not help anyone.

dag- you definitely have some good points. thx for your input

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 13, 2007 10:11 UTC (Thu) by kzm (guest, #47358) [Link]

> Ok, consider I publish code with GPL license and somebody sends me a patch
> to fix/enhance something. Will I be allowed to re-use that patch in a
> closed environment in my company?

Actually, yes. Copyright (and the licensing of same) does not regulate use, only distribution and public performance, so GPL vs BSD is irrelevant.

On the other hand, if your code was GPL, it would be legal for you to include the patch in your distribution (as it is a derivative work, and thus also GPL-licensed), if your code is BSD, you'd need an explicit permission from the author.

A small patch may be too trivial to be covered by copyright.

> I denounce people saying that the BSD people should shut up when
> they feel ripped off.

The difference between a legal right and a moral right is that the legal right can be enforced, the moral right can only be excercised through agreement. Ever wonder why so few beggars yell at you about their moral rights to some of your money? Amazing that so many bright developers apparently fail to realize that.

-k