Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 6 Dec 1995 22:19:49 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 200
Distribution: comp
Message-ID: <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <DJ3DM7.n0L@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi> <DJ6IJE.78D@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: escher.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29406 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:9892
John S. Dyson, in <DJ6IJE.78D@nntpa.cb.att.com>:
>In article <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote:
>>John S. Dyson, in <4a14v5$1lq@dyson.iquest.net>:
[...]
>Linus calls the shots in the kernel doesn't he??? He ALLOWS people
>to work on certain sections, right?? On FreeBSD, the development is
>much more open and diverse.
Rrright. Linux - one man; FreeBSD - a committee. Well, John, I don't
know what *your* experiences of interacting with committees are, but
_I_ would personally rather have just one person to worry about...
[...]
>>What do you mean they're not getting credit? Looked at the Linux
>>sources recently - read the CREDITS file? There are people's names
>>smothered all over the sources; authors near as I can tell always get
>>credited for their work.
>Is the CREDITS file necessary under GPL???
No; why should it be?
If you're anal about always getting credited, put your name in the
source files like most people do anyway; the CREDITS file is mostly
just a handy condensation of all those notes. But since that file is
part of the source tree, one could argue that distributing a source
tree without it would violate the GPL, yes.
(It would probably be an invalid line of argument if you read the GPL
literally, but...)
> It is good that there is a
>credits file in Linux, I guess, but it is not really necessary -- nor is
>it in FreeBSD. But in the case of the VM system where I spent much
>of my life with very little or no money reward, the BSD copyright protects
>me from preditors that might try to take credit for it (and indemnifies
>me from any damages, etc.) BTW, what about those files in the Linux
>kernel without any copyright messages at all???
What about them? If their authors had wanted credit, they could have
put attributions in those files. If you want to know what license
they're under, it's the same GPL as the rest of the kernel source -
including those source files that have explicit copyright notices.
Whether or not you explicitly spell it out in each source file, the
license on the Linux kernel is the GPL, and the copyrights are held by
the authors unless otherwise explicitly stated.
[...]
>>No part of the GPL grants you any right to claim others' work as your
>>own. No part of the GPL forbids you from crediting your own work to
>>yourself.
>But the BSD copyright guarantees it.
Rrright. So if I anonymously release something under a BSD copyright,
I'm guaranteed to get credit for this work I've never put my name on.
I think not. But the difference in practice is nil - put your name in
a GPL'ed source file, and the GPL protects it like it protects the
rest of that source.
>>As for what's "wrong" with the BSD copyright, I'm not sure if there's
>>anything wrong with it at all; I've never even read it, so I couldn't
>>tell.
>It is short and sweet -- probably 20 or so lines.
The reason I've never read it is that I've never had the occasion -
my Linux box runs no BSD-copyrighted software (to the best of my
knowledge). I tend to read copyrights only when I install and/or
compile some new package, and I've never yet installed BSD software
on that box; so far, diverse GNU stuff has done nicely in its place.
>>Doesn't this somewhat contradict what you said above about crediting
>>people for their work? Or does BSDI list you as co-developer of their
>>private, proprietary OS? I really don't know.
>It is guaranteed -- they can use my code without disclosing it.
If they use your code and don't disclose that they've done so, you're
guaranteed not to be credited for it. Did I misread you somewhere,
surely you didn't mean to say _that_?
> There is very little that they can do to it that I can't either.
>In essence, they can make proprietary mods that they feel can give
>them an edge -- and that is okay with me. I can do the same mods if
>I want. There is very little "magic" in any kernel that I know of.
Well, surprise - you can do just the same with GPL'ed software. Only
hitch is, the product you then release pretty much has to be GPL'ed as
well - if you can put up with that, you can do nearly anything you
please with GPL'ed source.
[...]
>I wasn't calling GPL equivalent to socialism -- it is just that the two ideals
>can be very scarey if carried out to their logical conclusion. (IMHO). I think
>that socialism is worse than GPL though, but that is off the topic.
I'm at a loss as to what you think is the logical conclusion of
releasing GPL'ed software, but you're probably right; it likely would
be off topic.
>>No it doesn't; you don't have to supply full source with every
>>ten-byte utility, you have to _make source available_. Naming a
>>publically available anon FTP site qualifies perfectly well; even an
>>explicit notice (good for >= 3 years, mind) that you'll snail-mail
>>anybody who wants it the source is good enough.
>How can one guarantee the availablity of the site????
By uploading it to ftp.cdrom.com, which runs BSD and hence will never
go down. ;-)
That part of the GPL (offering source access from FTP sites) strictly
only applies to binaries distributed via the same FTP sites (last
paragraph of section 3 of the GPL (v.2)), so if the site goes down,
you can't get either binary or source, and nothing is distributed.
> That sounds like
>a significant encumberence to me. My little special program that has
>a very small special interest following might not be available on such
>an FTP site for long. I'd rather not deal with that encumberance.
So distribute full source, or an explicit notice to the effect that
you (contact information provided) will supply such source to anyone
who wants it at no extra cost, for the following three years. Little
special programs with very small special interest followings oughtn't
overflow your mailbox, right?
Seriously, John, in 99% of any cases either one of us is interested in
this is a nonissue, since Unix software is still traditionally
distributed as source _only_. I've not run into any binary-only
distribution of any of the *BSD's so far, have you?
>>But even so, gzip'ped source trees tucked away on the last one in a
>>set of distribution CD-ROM's do not hurt these days. Don't try to fool
>>me that it does.
>Hmmm... There is quite a space crunch on the latest WC cdroms lately :-),
>I guess that they will just need to press more of them.
One more CD in a set of four or five to hold the compressed source for
what's on the other ones. For crying out loud, there are *games* being
delivered on no less than *seven* CD's already! Pressing one CD was
last I heard of it still cheap.
>>>Let me explain a case-in-point... If someone makes a fancy mod to
>>>the FreeBSD VM system thereby gaining a 50% performance increase and
>>>makes it private, do you think that I cannot do the same???
>>Maybe you can, I wouldn't know. If FreeBSD was GPL'ed, neither one of
>>you could legally do that.
>I wasn't meaning that I would make FreeBSD private -- I could easily
>reproduce their work and keep it public.
Even if you've no idea what they've done? Even if you lack the
manpower and resources to develop a parallel to whatever they did?
If you really can, then I salute you; but if that sort of coding is
really doable for most developers, how come anybody still bothers to
reverse-engineer anything?
>>The GPL is more legalistic - it doesn't trust in the good intentions
>>of a lot of people, it puts down in legal terms what you can and can't
>>do, and if anybody does it anyway, they'll have _broken the law_.
>Legalistic does not mean clear cut. Legal language has been used to
>be obscure at times (at least in the US.)
And stars know it took me a bit of brainwork to grok the GPL; but I
wasn't using the word properly, I apologize for being unclear. I meant
to say the GPL takes a more "legal", cut-in-stone approach, as opposed
to merely trusting that "nobody will do anything nasty with this
code"; it spells out what is and isn't allowed.
>>So maybe you won't be able to do anything about it because you can't
>>afford the lawyers. But if the BSD copyright doesn't make those same
>>things explicit in much the same way, then even if you _could_ afford
>>the lawyers, you wouldn't be able to do anything.
>GPL is definitely not a layman's contract -- but I can sure read the BSD
>copyright. It was written by lawyers (apparently) and is very very simple.
"Written by lawyers and is very simple" - isn't that a self-
contradicting statement? ;-)
But I disagree that the GPL is all _that_ impossible to understand. To
be sure, it takes some trying; but it can be done. I think I've a
reasonable grasp of its basic premises, and I'm certainly no lawyer.
But most importantly, that extra complexity probably gives you some
advantage that the simpler BSD copyright doesn't; the GPL goes into
great detail on what your rights are, as author, user, or
distributor.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
-- nin