From: r...@santafe.edu (Richard Stallman) Subject: What's Wrong with the BSD License Date: 1998/04/17 Message-ID: <199804170609.AAA27862@wijiji.santafe.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 344921337 Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-requ...@prep.ai.mit.edu x-uunet-gateway: relay5.UU.NET from gnu-misc-discuss to gnu.misc.discuss; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 02:14:18 EDT Reply-To: r...@gnu.org Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss [Please redistribute this to other newsgroups and mailing lists where it is appropriate.] What's Wrong with the BSD License A recent announcement from the XFree86 project stated that XFree86 is distributed under a BSD-style license. Fortunately, that was not quite accurate: the license used by XFree86 is not actually BSD-style, and therefore it avoids contributing to a serious community problem. XFree86 uses a non-copyleft free software license, as did the X Consortium in the past. (It is a non-copyleft license because it permits others who redistribute the software to add restrictions.) The BSD license is also a non-copyleft free software license, but it is a special kind: it includes the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause", which says that every advertisement mentioning the software must include a particular sentence which refers to the University of California. This clause creates a kind of gridlock for advertising free software products. If the obnoxious BSD advertising clause were used only in BSD, then it would not cause a major problem. Including one sentence in an ad is not a great practical difficulty. If other developers who use BSD-style licenses copied the BSD advertising clause verbatim--including the sentence that refers to the University of California--then they would not make the problem any bigger. But that isn't what people do. Typically they change the required sentence, replacing "University of California" with their own institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of programs requiring a plethora of different sentences. When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. You could not advertise that with less than a full-page ad. This might seem like an absurd fantastic, but it is simple fact. NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences required for any advertisement; I counted 75 of them. That was in a manual I saw in 1997. I would not be surprised if the list has grown by now. To address this problem, in my spare time I talk with developers who have used BSD-style licenses, asking them to remove the advertising clause. One developer I am talking with is the University of California; maybe, just maybe, they will remove the obnoxious BSD advertising clause from BSD itself. Addressing individual instances of this problem will help to solve it, but most important of all is not to spread it. This problem is specific to the BSD license; other non-copyleft licenses don't add to it. So if you want to release a program as non-copylefted free software, please don't use a BSD-style license. By using some other non-copyleft license, such as the one used by XFree86 now, you can avoid spreading the problem. When people refer to all non-copyleft free software licenses as "BSD licenses", that can lead new free software developers to spread the problem without even thinking about it. To encourage awareness of the issue, please don't say "BSD-style" unless you mean specifically the BSD license with its trouble some advertising clause. If you would like to cite one specific example of a non-copyleft licenses, and you have no particular preference, please pick an example which has no particular problem. For instance, if you suggest using an "XFree86-style licenses", you will encourage people to imitate XFree86 rather than BSD.
From: r...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: What's Wrong with the BSD License Date: 1998/04/18 Message-ID: <6hbb0o$6cg@enews1.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 345492397 References: <199804170609.AAA27862@wijiji.santafe.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss In article <199804170609.AAA27...@wijiji.santafe.edu>, r...@santafe.edu (Richard Stallman) writes: > [Please redistribute this to other newsgroups and mailing lists > where it is appropriate.] > And people will laugh at you, like they do much of the time anyway. > > If the obnoxious BSD advertising clause were used only in BSD, then it > would not cause a major problem. Including one sentence in an ad is > not a great practical difficulty. If other developers who use > BSD-style licenses copied the BSD advertising clause > verbatim--including the sentence that refers to the University of > California--then they would not make the problem any bigger. > You don't believe that people deserve credit for their works? Of course, the collectivist diffuse ownership associated with GPL encumberance keeps usage of GPLed software minimized anyway. You need to look in your own house before criticizing others first. > > To address this problem, in my spare time I talk with developers who > have used BSD-style licenses, asking them to remove the advertising > clause. One developer I am talking with is the University of > California; maybe, just maybe, they will remove the obnoxious BSD > advertising clause from BSD itself. > FreeBSD has already been doing that. You are about 2yrs behind. > > When people refer to all non-copyleft free software licenses as "BSD > licenses", that can lead new free software developers to spread the > problem without even thinking about it. To encourage awareness of the > issue, please don't say "BSD-style" unless you mean specifically the > BSD license with its trouble some advertising clause. > I suggest the best thing is to clean up both the GPL and the BSD license. Of course, you are too narrow minded to see how terribly broken that the GPL is. I am open to changing with reality, and suggest that you do also. In your case, my signature line applies ideally, and was meant with narrow minded people in mind. You can prove me wrong, by careful personal reflection. Of course, zealots don't do that, without terrible bias, and continued ignorance of reality. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dy...@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
From: jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) Subject: Re: What's Wrong with the BSD License Date: 1998/04/19 Message-ID: <jeremyEroD0F.8Cp@netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 345712764 Sender: jer...@netcom13.netcom.com References: <199804170609.AAA27862@wijiji.santafe.edu> <6hbb0o$6cg@enews1.newsguy.com> Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss r...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes: >In article <199804170609.AAA27...@wijiji.santafe.edu>, > r...@santafe.edu (Richard Stallman) writes: >> [Please redistribute this to other newsgroups and mailing lists >> where it is appropriate.] >> >And people will laugh at you, like they do much of the time anyway. John, this was an inappropriate (IMHO), unjustified attack. rms has as much right as you to make his opinions known in this news group. Please don't apply personal attacks to someone whose ideas you dislike. It diminishes the discussion. By all means attack rms for his ideas, but not for using his freedom to speak. Regards, Jeremy Allison. Samba Team.
From: r...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: What's Wrong with the BSD License Date: 1998/04/19 Message-ID: <6hdveh$e0l@enews3.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 345779256 References: <199804170609.AAA27862@wijiji.santafe.edu> <6hbb0o$6cg@enews1.newsguy.com> <jeremyEroD0F.8Cp@netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss In article <jeremyEroD0F....@netcom.com>, jer...@netcom.com (Jeremy Allison) writes: > r...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes: > >>In article <199804170609.AAA27...@wijiji.santafe.edu>, >> r...@santafe.edu (Richard Stallman) writes: >>> [Please redistribute this to other newsgroups and mailing lists >>> where it is appropriate.] >>> >>And people will laugh at you, like they do much of the time anyway. > > John, this was an inappropriate (IMHO), unjustified attack. > rms has as much right as you to make his opinions known > in this news group. > > Please don't apply personal attacks to someone whose > ideas you dislike. It diminishes the discussion. By > all means attack rms for his ideas, but not for using > his freedom to speak. > RMS has a history of being blind to new ideas. I am very intolerant of people and opinions that generally affect people negatively. The GPL-elite has a history of narrow mindedness and inflexibility. We have endeavored to correct the deficiencies in the BSD license when we can, and such deficiencies haven't been addressed at all in the GPL world. The more that good software is irrevocably tainted by GPL, the more such software is less available for use for the public good. Such use can be both commercial and non-commercial, and until the problems are resolved, the GPL will continue to be the commercial joke (or insult, depending on how you look at it) that it really is. RMS can affect alot of people, and the emperor needs to be made aware of reality, or more people will be hurt. That is, at least if the emperor cares more about people than HIS ideology, he will change HIS position. Additionally, it is clear that people need to be made aware of the ideological basis of GPL, along with it's practical limitations. RMS has historically ignored the realistic problems with GPLv2 (or at least the public stance is that it has been ignored.) Of course, RMS's life is comfortable, and will be comfortable as long as his scheme prevails. As long as people follow him blindly, the negative effects of the scheme will also continue. It is clear that the GPLv2 needs to be improved, and of course, there are individuals such as HIM who have no reason to fix it. Appealing to HIS ego by being nice has not historically worked, so appealing to HIM so that HIS highness will not be further embarassed, is likely the best track. It is refreshing to see that innovations such as NPL are being tried out. The critical mass of a reasonable license scheme will be a boon to free software. GPLv2 isn't it... Isn't it interesting when the previous radicals become part of the establishment, and it's problems? You know, the narrow minded, conservative establishment who are afraid of change? It seems that the GPL-elite are in that dinosaur mode now. Those people who have made change in the world show their true strength when they are willing to review their work and continue to improve the environment for the people that they are supposedly championing. The GPL crew has stopped being as helpful as they once were. It is due to historical inflexibility, and the situation appears to be getting only worse. Maybe he'll wake up to reality, and I will have done him (and many people making a mistake) good by causing enough of an uproar that the GPL will be fixed. Again, this will happen only if the GPL-elite has an interest in people over ideology. (And eventually, the GPL itself will fall into obscurity, since it hasn't changed with the times.) It is so frustrating to see so much good software out there with such a messed up license. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dy...@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.