NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/unix/bsd/4615

Text File | 1992-08-23 | 3.5 KB | 70 lines

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!csn!raven!rcd
From: [e-mail] (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: selling 386BSD
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:27:44 GMT
Lines: 59

[e-mail] (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
>[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>>...(a) is freely redistributable (i.e., anyone can give it to
>>>anyone else), (b) can be put to whatever legal use someone wants to put
>>>it to [...] (c) any modified version *must* be distributed with source as
>>>part of the distribution, but other than being included with the
>>>normal distribution, can be distributed with any copyright provisions.
>
>>I'm not sure how this differs from the Copyleft. Could you provide an
>>example?
...
>It differs because if, say, the C compiler hcc were covered by this
>license, some computer company, say HAL, could modify it and sell HAL
>hcc under restrictive terms.  Anybody would still be able to get the
>original hcc but the only way to get the HAL modifications would be to
>purchase them directly from HAL...

Taylor is right; it is different from copyleft--but in a way that seems
to me even less useful.  The company building the modified software still
must make the source available, but the end users don't necessarily get to
do much with it.  For example, if you're building a product which contains
the software, you're required to distribute the source for the software
even if (a) it amounts to free reverse-engineering info on the product and
(b) the source is of no use to anyone but you.  (Keep in mind that software
goes into a lot of products other than general-purpose computers.)

>The terms are described above are essentially public domain, except
>that anybody who sells a program covered by these terms is required to
>provide source...

In other words, the terms described above are completely different from
public domain.  They are slightly less restrictive than copyleft, but still
quite a bit more restrictive than the BSD copyright--which itself is not
public domain.

>...However, they [the terms] need to be made more complex to provide
>the protection I think the original poster is after, because as
>described above they imply that person A could sell the code to person
>B, with source, but permit person B to resell the code without source.

Yes, if that's the goal Brown and Taylor have in mind, the terms will have
to be more complex.  It gets complicated because it's an attempt to give
something away (sort of), yet keep strings attached.

Since this *is* comp.unix.bsd, I'll point out that the BSD copyright is
fairly simple, just because it actually gives people the unfettered right
to use the software, without attaching strings to further use and re-
distribution.  Removing the "social engineering" aspect from free software
simplifies things a lot.  It does let "bad people" do some things you may
not like, but that's the way freedom works anyway...and *you*don't* lose
the software even though somebody else won't let his copy out.

If you're writing software and you want to give it to others so they can
use it, stop and think at the outset whether you really want to attach
strings to it, or simply make it freely redistributable.
--
Dick Dunn    [e-mail]   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
                Cats!