
	Where results make sense

Topic: BSD and GPL licensing

Related Topics

BSD licence

GNU General Public License

GNU Lesser General Public License

List of programs released under the GPL

GNU Free Documentation License

CYK algorithm

Carl Gustav rifle

Arundhati Roy

Harry Rawson

1949 in aviation

Lamar River

BSD license

	Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
		This license is based on the terms of the Expat and modified BSD licenses.
		The primary incompatibility is that this Python license is governed by the laws of the State of Virginia, in the USA, and the GPL does not permit this.
		This is a Free Documentation license that is incompatible with the GNU FDL.
	www.gnu.org /philosophy/license-list.html (6165 words)

	BSD and GPL licensing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The BSD license only requires acknowledging the original authors, and imposes few restrictions on how the source code may be used.
		They argue that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, because it grants the right to do nearly anything with the source code, second only to software in the public domain, and that the nature of the BSD license has encouraged the inclusion of well-developed standard code into proprietary software.
		GPL supporters claim the derivative work license requirement is more a form of power than a freedom,[1] and that the BSD license allows people to "hoard" the work of others without having to give anything back.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing (614 words)

	BSD license - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The text of the license is considered to be in the public domain and thus may be modified without restriction.
		As of a revision to the BSD license in 1999, the controversial clause was removed.
		This '4-clause' advertising version was removed from the official BSD license text on July 22, 1999 by William Hoskins, the director of the office of technology licensing for Berkeley, in response to a request from Richard Stallman.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/BSD_License (1287 words)

	BSD license - Anarchopedia
		The BSD license is an acronym for the Berkeley Software Distribution license agreement, and is one of the most widely used licenses for free software (a subset of open source software).
		As of a revision to the BSD license in 1999, the controversial clause was removed.
		This '4-clause' advertising version was removed from the official BSD license text on July 22, 1999 by William Hoskins, the director of the office of technology licensing for Berkeley, in response to a request from Richard Stallman.
	eng.anarchopedia.org /index.php/BSD_license (1387 words)

	Open Source Licensing: BSD and GPL
		A quick read through the current versions of the BSD license and the GPL shows there can be vast differences in the conditions property owners see fit to include in their license.
		The BSD license (both the original which required attribution to the Regents of California using the advertising clause, and the newer version which does not include that clause) is typically categorized as an "academic license" or a "permissive, non-copyleft license".
		The permissiveness of the BSD license was also instrumental in the popularization of the CSRG's version of TCP/IP-- Berkeley was one of four sites contracted to make a working version of TCP/IP and their version was the one that became integrated into most operating systems.
	blogs.ittoolbox.com /unix/bsd/archives/open-source-licensing-bsd-and-gpl-13990 (1376 words)

	BSD Licensing Benefits vs. the GPL \| IT Business Edge (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		Licensing is not a big issue for end users; they want a product that works as advertised and that has the backing of a commercial vendor for support.
		GPL author Richard Stallman thinks that copyright protections have gone far beyond their original intent, according to this piece, and that legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act means open source and free software enthusiasts need to work harder to keep software licenses free.
		Though the current GPL was intended for global use, it is no longer sufficient given the growth of the open source movement and the evolution of new distribution modes.
	www.itbusinessedge.com /item?ci=119 (1284 words)

	gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general
		If you have a license, you can require the user to accept the software as-is in return your letting him use it, and by using the software he implicitly accepts the terms of the contract.
		GPL and LGPL are too restrictive for SQLite because applications generally want to be able to statically link against SQLite without inheriting the GPL license requirements.
		BSD license simply stated that you have to acknowledge the portion that's under the BSD license explicitly and put their copyright statement somewhere...
	comments.gmane.org /gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general/12313 (3890 words)

	FSF - Licenses
		This license is the disjunction of the Artistic License 1.0 and the GNU GPL—in other words, you can choose either of those two licenses.
		This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL.
		It is a non-copyleft free software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL, and has practical problems like those of the original BSD license.
	www.fsf.org /licensing/licenses/index_html (6322 words)

	BSD Definition / BSD Research (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) is the name of the UNIX derivative distributed in the 1970sMillennia: 1st millennium - 2nd millennium - 3rd millennium Events and trends...
		BSD is a family of complete operating systems.
		BSD is a direct descendant of the Unix operating system.
	www.elresearch.com /BSD (83 words)

	Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
		The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers.
		Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules.
		The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software--which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.
	www.gnu.org /licenses/gpl-faq.html (18196 words)

	ITworld.com - What open source is
		The GPL goes further than that, however, by including its copyleft protection, or the requirement that redistributed modifications be released under the same license.
		Let me now point out that the FSF considers the original BSD license to be a free software license, and the modified BSD license, which dropped the advertising clause constraint of the original, to be not only a free software license but a GPL-compatible one at that.
		I wish it were possible to place that whole licensing bucket of worms across the tracks of the Cluetrain Manifesto (see Resources for a link) and let it do a little preemptive repackaging based on plain talk and common sense.
	www.itworld.com /Comp/2365/lw-09-vcontrol_4 (1535 words)

	Open Source Initiative OSI - The GPL:Licensing (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
		For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
		Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
	www.opensource.org /licenses/gpl-license.php (2608 words)

	Daring Fireball: Markdown Licensing
		Markdown 1.0 and earlier were released under the GPL; starting with version 1.0.1, Markdown is now licensed under a less-restrictive BSD-style license.
		In a nut, the reason I originally chose the GPL for Markdown was that I had the vague, poorly-thought-out notion that Markdown could be available freely to users who simply wanted to use it, and to developers writing other open source projects.
		This licensing change also applies to Michel Fortin’s PHP Markdown port, version 1.0.1 of which should be released shortly, and which will also now be available under a BSD-style license.
	daringfireball.net /2004/12/markdown_licensing (895 words)

	OpenBSD Copyright Policy
		Typically these notices are associated with license terms which grant permissions subject to copyright law and with disclaimers that state the position of the copyright holder/distributor with respect to liability surrounding use of the material.
		The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention.
		The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
	www.openbsd.org /policy.html (2050 words)

	BSD license - (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		The BSD license is an acronym for the Berkeley Software Distribution license agreement, and is one of the most widely used licenses for free software (a subset of open source software).
		Many software programs are released under this license including BSD software (largely, a version of UNIX) for which the license was named.
		SixXS uses an extended 3-clause BSD LICENSE, the license contains a short list of the differences compared to the 3 clause BSD license.
	psychcentral.com /psypsych/BSD_license (1445 words)

	Linux Today - Mad Penguin: BSD Licensing Versus GPL
		During the dialogue, I found myself questioning the wisdom of GPL in all things.
		That’s not because I don't believe that the GPL is a solid open source license mind you, but rather how it can encourage creation while inhibiting growth at the same time.
		"One of the biggest hang-ups with the GPL license for a lot of companies is that, in some instances, they feel like they are required to divulge information on how their software works just to participate in the movement.
	www.linuxtoday.com /news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-03-22-015-26-OP-SW-LL (598 words)

	Licensing faceoff: BSD vs GPL \| NetworkWorld.com Community
		This is the weakness of BSD, and the strength of GPL.
		Indeed, the BSD license actually offers fewer benefits to an end-user of software, simply because the GPL increases the likelihood that improvements made by third parties (and subsequently distributed) will be made available to them.
		There is nothing to stop a vendor from releasing a program under the GPL while at the same time offering a version to resellers or system integrators under a commercial license which allows them to keep their changes private.
	www.networkworld.com /community?q=node/2252 (2050 words)

	RE: [agdp] Possible change in AGDP licensing
		Most importantly, the license should not interfere with the commercialization of the Access Grid which is ultimately I would think the goal of this project.
		Right now, and people can correct me if I am wrong, there is concern about how GPL (and similarly licensed) software will be commercialized (or maybe I am thinking about the Microsoft and Open Source licensing discussion) when derivitative works become covered by GPL or something similar.
		So, I think what is needed is a license that protects the ideas in the AG (documentation and software where appropriate) from bodies that would seek to restrict ownership or extensibility of the AG's ideas, technology, and documentation.
	www.accessgrid.org /mail_archive/agdp/Archive/msg00184.html (891 words)

	Network World: FACE-OFF: Is BSD a better open source licensing model than the GPL?
		The GPL was created by developers, for developers, to grow the open source code base and ensure that it remains open source.The license works nicely for software companies that want to reduce software development costs without having to give up control of intellectual property
		Developers who want their code to be freely available and comply with the tenets of Free Open Source also created the BSD license.
		However, in contrast to the GPL the BSD's goal is to pass on control to those who adopt it, thus making the terms of the BSD license more pragmatic, generous, flexible and an overall better choice for todays enterprise customers.
	www.findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_qa3649/is_200507/ai_n14718429 (384 words)

	[osflash] OS Licensing GPL vs. BSD
		InfoEther > (my company) decided to BSD license it specifically because we believe that > a component framework should be free for everyone (commercial or > non-commercial).
		GPL gives the author great power and in > > > contrast to my ancient believe, the possibility to make money of his > > > work, because people "don't" want to gpl their derivative stuff.
		Few years ago I > > did GPL paid development : the company wanted to have GPL software so > users > > can use and extend it but they wanted to keep the "basic" version with > > unrestricted licensing to include in their products.
	osflash.org /pipermail/osflash_osflash.org/2005-July/001487.html (857 words)

	LWN: The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and Microsoft funding (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		GPL: Less liberal; changes must usually be made available in source-code form.
		Releasing government-sponsored code under the BSD license would allow proprietary vendors to get a free ride from research paid for by taxpayers.
		Nothing about the GPL or LGPL specifies that any elements of the configuration of a system (such as the root password) must be shared.
	lwn.net /Articles/1863 (1876 words)

	FSF - GPLv3 and Software as a Service
		I'm not sure it's always a horrible thing to dictate technology to accomplish your policy, but it's definitely less than ideal, and 7(b)4 was a shining example of it.
		Even worse, the clause had the potential to make GPLv3 compatible with onerous licenses, with obnoxious terms akin to the BSD advertising clause.
		We're going to write a new license, version 2 of the Affero GPL, that solves this problem in a more general way and doesn't dictate technology.
	www.fsf.org /blogs/licensing/2007-03-29-gplv3-saas (542 words)

	JabberChat FAQ (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		With this license, you are welcome to mold and shape the script to suit your particular needs -- make it match your site, add/remove actions, or anything within your abilities.
		Software under BSD or GPL licensing is designed to be modified, re-used, and distributed free of charge.
		If you have a particular question about purchasing a license, or something which you feel is confidential concerning your site and/or the usage of JabberChat, email wyndo@prowler-pro.com.
	www.prowler-pro.com /jabberchat/jcfaq.html (1299 words)

	FSF - GPL Compliance and Licensing (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		Details on the activites of the GPL Compliance Lab, and writing related to questions about licensing.
		As we start to finalize the license, we want to make this process even more public, so I'll be writing pretty regularly about the issues that have come up.
		So, if the text in brackets is adopted for the final version of the license, it is true that this would grandfather in Novell.
	www.fsf.org /blogs/licensing (1417 words)

	Slashdot \| Open-source Licensing: BSD or GPL?
		GPL is extremely hard to use as part of a commercial project, as it forces GPL on everything that links to it.
		A project [sourceforge.net] I started and is still actively developed is licensed under a two clause BSD license with the outright intention that it help proprietary software makers enter a hard to define market.
		The BSD license is great if you are a big company and lots of little folks like me are contributing BSD software that you can use in any proprietary way you wish.
	bsd.slashdot.org /article.pl?sid=05/07/08/0447259&from=rss (5513 words)

	ProwlerPoll FAQ (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-16)
		With this license, you are welcome to mold and shape the script to suit your particular needs -- make it match your site, add/remove features, or anything within your abilities.
		The $15 license fee for ProwlerPoll is to obtain the rights to make modifications to the script, its graphics, and related files.
		If you have a particular question about purchasing a license, or something which you feel is confidential concerning your site and/or the usage of ProwlerPoll, email wyndo@prowler-pro.com.
	www.prowler-pro.com /prowlerpoll/ppfaq.html (1022 words)

	Mozilla Code Licensing
		The Mozilla Foundation is the custodian of the Mozilla Public License (MPL), a open source/free software copyright license currently at version 1.1.
		Core Mozilla project source code is licensed under a disjunctive tri-license giving you the choice of one of the three following sets of free software/open source licensing terms:
		GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later
	www.mozilla.org /MPL (259 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)