Within the free software licenses we find the GPL license (Gnu Public License) with all its variants and the BSD (Bbalcony Software Ddistribution).
The GPL does not allow us to shut down the system or application that uses any of the variants of the GPL and we must always distribute the source code.
This law is partly free and therefore it is hypocritical since it is screaming freedom from the rooftops and then it does not let us close the system.
On the other hand, the BSD allows us to see the code and modify it, but it also allows us to close the system or the application.
Normally, this is read by someone who defends open source and not private, but freedom also includes being able to shut down our system.
An example of this is the apple system, this system is a BSD, the Darwin kernel is a mix of Mach1 with some BSD and it is free, although the other parts of the system are closed source.
EYE, with this I am not saying that the GPL is a bad license, I consider it a good license since it gives us more freedom than the private ones, but the BSD is true free software since it allows us everything.
Throughout its history this license has undergone several changes:
- 4 clause BSD
- 3 clause BSD
Then there is a variant, the so called 2-clause or simplified BSD which is used by FreeBSD.
Interesting fact, a well summarized explanation of what differentiates the two. I will never forget it, the existence of several licenses was already intriguing, for a reason.
Greetings 😉
PS: I do not use ubuntu oO that was a trick of my user-agent: O
Total as you are not ubuntoso I'm not going to shit you hahaha
😀 from the one that saved me, hehehe
To sticks ubuntu loads you ubuntu / I hate - »#pendejos #lol
«You are not ubuntoso I'm not going to screw you up»
I understood that it was not the gpl but the so-called copyleft that forced distribution with the same original conditions, but of course I am not very clear about this ...
At least the GPL does not allow to close the code, which is to remove freedom
From my point of view it would be to ensure that the code will always be free, which is its goal. Other than that, the BSD license is the best.
Greetings.
Interesting, but something that ails.
If the BSD gives you that freedom to shut down the system, wouldn't it be restricting the freedom for others to move on to something better? Perhaps that is where the GPL is based so that the code is free in the same way for others and, thus, collaborate with each other and for all.
The problem is that if you want to collaborate in the development of something with a GPL license, you are obliged to distribute the source code.
If I collaborate and what is formed between what I give and others give, it is still for everyone, why would there be a problem there? Or is it that the problem itself, is that you want to take the code of others and be able to close it by adding what I know and not share it with anyone ... wouldn't it be selfish for the community, even if it is a freedom itself?
It can be selfish, but it is one thing to be forced to share the modifications you make and another thing to share the modifications voluntarily. Copyleft forces you to share, and that's something the GPL has but not the BSD.
There is just the difference. The idea of Free Software, as raised by Richard Stallman, is that proprietary software, that is, shutting down the code, is an "evil" towards the community. For Stallman, and that is something I agree, the freedom to close the code is not a true freedom in that it deprives others of access to that modification. That is the idea of copyleft, that is, it is a protection to the community from someone taking advantage of what the community has done.
Let's see no no and no! The GPL forces you to always redistribute the source code of the project, the BSD allows you to modify the original and redistribute it as closed code but in no case, I repeat, none, allows you to close the first code that you release under the license, but only the one that you modify from that license. The original code is always free.
Something tangled for me, and I would like to remove this doubt.
That is, if I take the code of soft_A (with GPL license), edit it and release it as soft_B (with BSD license and closed code) ... it is released to the community and from soft_B1, B2 with the same license, it would no longer be had obligation to release the code? Or is that when you say "original code" you mean the GPL license, because it is obvious that the original remains with the GPL license and its variants with other licenses.
That part was the one that I did not understand very well, if you can clarify it more, I would appreciate it very much.
Because if the way you say, is that I can take the code of the soft_A with the GPL license and from there close the code with my modifications and not release the community, it would be a bit or very selfish to do this with code that is freely released for the entire community and not supporting the cause of continuing to grow together.
But they take advantage of open source to create non-free software. They improve the project with four puffs and benefit from the effort of others (a nonsense for those who intend to promote free software).
@Wild, the GPL does not allow that license change. The BSD does.
Let's see wild I explain it well, because of course, the gpl code I think you couldn't pass it to bsd like that because yes. Example:
You create a new browser called Wildfox and release it under modified bsd licenses (not to be confused with the original bsd license), you get to version 7 and finally decide to release version 8 as closed code, all code up to version 7 will be free, from version 8 it will be closed, although you must name who developed the code for the previous versions, in this case yourself.
What to say that companies give them 4 hits, is not always the case, many times if those companies did not put the millions of euros in development, that code that you developed would probably have fallen into oblivion.
But by changing four cocks you can also close the code, pandev. To my knowledge there is no clause that forces you to put X new lines of code or invest Z million euros to close it.
A BSD-licensed community project, developed by multiple volunteers, can become a closed 'novelty' in the X operating system by changing the logo, name, and little else. With a GPL license that cannot happen. If CUPS had a BSD license, Apple would close the bar in a blink of an eye.
Ahem, let's see, it is Apple that gave cups that license, everything is for convenience, I say, if they had wanted they would have put another license from the beginning.
http://www.cups.org/documentation.php/license.html
Seriously? I believed that the developer of the project had been hired when it was already licensed as GPL. Surely that good man regretted not having the code closed (or totally free).
Just as those of Wine regretted for using the X11 license (similar to the BSD), they took advantage of those of Cedega to do business. They didn't take long to switch to GPL.
Are you saying that I can't do business with the software or what? That is called Talibanism or in another way, being envious that someone was smarter than you and decided to use your code to make money, which no one has told you not to do, by the way, the day that wine has the performance of cedega, in the sense that you can say that certain apps work 100%, then they can complain.
This is not about Talibanism. I explain:
The CUPS developer I understand that he chose a GPL license because he believed in the principles of free software. The bitten apple appeared, bought the code and hired him (but could not change the license). That is, even if you regret it, you will continue to help free software.
Wine developers had to choose another license from the beginning, as it has been seen that they did not like others closing their code.
Whether you choose the GPL or the BSD, you must bear the consequences. The good thing about BSD is that it allows you to change the license. The good thing about the GPL is that you force to keep the source open.
Courage, correct: "the other parts of the system"
Wow
I wrote this article long ago on my other blog and I hadn't even noticed
That's how old you are like this ... forgetting things already ... LOL !!
And the "stuffy" thing I don't quite understand. Your youthful / senile jargon I don't understand.
LOL!!!! HAHAHAHAHA TOOOOMMMMAAAA !!! another one that Courage does ... uff ... between "haño" and "harticle" has us laughing to death haha
If that is how you write how many, at 17? I don't want to know how you will do it when you are my age XD.
At this rate you will have to retire at 26 XD ...
The truth is that I would not like to reach 26, it is not worth it
I hate these shitty netbook keyboards, no one can write with them.
If it becomes another it does not happen to me
Apple loves the BSD license. If I were a free software programmer I would never use it, why? Because I would not be amused if others took advantage of my code, damaging the movement I support. I prefer the GPLv2 license.
if closing the system, it refers to closing the code ...
I am for GPL and against BSD
Well, for a reason these licenses exist, each one is RADIO to choose the one that best suits you 🙂 here is the detail.
Oh how Stallman reads you.
I don't think it's right for someone to take a free code, put 3 more lines on it and close the code
the concept of freedom is quite relative
by that rule of three, each one is FREE to take a knife and kill 20 people xD
Courage article
but what I do not understand, if this already exists and most of what we read here. we are programmers or initiators in this world of programming. Because there are still companies that are dedicated to suing home or small business programmers for their aforementioned copyright and copyright.
We must not confuse patents with copyrights.
I pass you the note http://noticiaspe.terra.com.pe/tecnologia/noticias/0,, OI5322396-EI12471,00-The + war + of + patents + reaches + the + little + programmers.html
But I know programmers in the field who close their code, not so much not to share it with others or to help improve free software, it is to protect themselves, in case a large company comes and sued them, therefore they do not close the code out of selfishness if not to protect itself from corporations. So how valid are the BSB licenses?
The example you cite speaks of patents. The patent of a concept that is seen in the application itself. No matter how closed the code is, they will threaten you in the same way. The issue of patents is not solved by closing the code.
Closing the system is like stealing the effort of others, you can be more free but threatening the freedom of others.
This is what I wanted to get to, if you observe that there are still some clouds in the GPL BSD licenses and many others, so to speak, that we will not touch the subject because it would be to leave this blog completely, since there is this Ambiguity is what many important companies take advantage of, and they hurt or do not allow the free development of the programmer (eye the free development of the programmer) I put it twice so that they see that I am not talking about the program. I am talking about ourselves, but even if we want to earn some money with our work it is somewhat difficult, if I release the code, someone or a group of people may develop a system or a game that is better than ourselves (remember 5 heads think better than a), how we compete as home or small business programmers, can someone explain to me? . But, in case of closing the code, they accuse him of not supporting the software or the growth of programs that have a bad plan 🙁
Ok, I'll try to help you digest this a bit (hopefully I will: P).
The difference between proprietary software and free software lies mainly in the business model (yes, who said you can't do business with Free Software? If you don't believe me, ask Red Hat and its trillion dollars made thanks to this XD model).
The proprietary or closed source software wants to make users see that its application is equivalent to a product, this would be more or less as if it made you believe that by selling its application they were selling you a peach, a vehicle, etc. Obviously this is not possible, since the program is an inanimate and intangible article, but without the peach and the vehicle, if they are products, now, they close their code for this same reason: who can copy a peach or a vehicle? Anyone but the copying your application? Everyone can do it, since this is possible and it is very simple to do. As proprietary application developers have another alternative? Not because? Because they themselves chose to use this business model. This business model carries the following risks, you as a proprietary software programmer develop X applications, let's say, a web browser, you patent it and try to sell it, believe me that when you do this, you will practically be sentencing your own application to die without having even seen the light, why? Easy, how many patents do you think you have "run over" during the development of your application? Hundreds, if not thousands, so you will have to deal with one or more companies that are bigger, powerful and influential than yours, companies that will have hundreds of programmers within their ranks and, as you said yourself, 5 heads they think better than 1. Suppose you only "attacked" one company: P, this company will only give you 3 alternatives:
<° 1 If your program is good enough, he will take it away from you by using his entire portfolio of patents against you, giving you only a nominal amount in return.
<° 2 You will have to pay to use their patents, which will exponentially increase the cost of your application, making it practically unaffordable.
<° 3 Don't sell your app and throw your effort overboard.
Now, the model proposed by Free Software is the following:
This model intends that your application is the key or the business card of your business and not the cornerstone of it. In short, you will not sell your application as a product, what you will do is sell a service, like? Simple, suppose you develop a system that is responsible for keeping the general accounting of a company, you release it as free software and distribute it, you can charge a minimum amount to distribute it, to allow them to test it, etc. Now, let's suppose that I come across your program, I try it and I like it, but as we know, not all businesses are handled in the same way, I am getting in touch with you to make some small modifications to your application to focus it on me. particular accounting case, or contract your technical support service, etc. Do you see where the key to success lies in this model?
Another thing that free software allows is collaboration, your program may be just plain good, but what if 5 more programmers help you out? Your program would become very good, this is the collaboration I am talking about, also, if someone takes part of your code and implements it in their own version, it would not only be beneficial for both, since he learned from you and the most It is likely that you will learn from it, as well as it will advertise to you by having to recognize that it is part of the code of your application 😛
So bro, which business model do you think is more productive?
If you need something else, just ask, here nobody gets mad about this, greetings ...
Ok, so far everything that I read I agree with the software licenses, I will not get into which is the best as they say, one will choose the best for your project, but what scares me is that If I license a project that is 100% mine, and I put it with a GPL or BSD type license, I will have problems with the big companies.
Even more so if my project starts to generate a few pennies and starts to grow.
Because in the end, as they say, if you go to court, the one who wins is that he has more money or the one that has more heads better than one.
@Courage There are several things that are not very clear to me:
<° Why do you need to close the system?
<° Because it's hypocritical, why doesn't it let you do "everything"?
Friend, you are free to use the GLP or BSD license or close the code as you see fit, nobody forces you to do anything ... But instead, if you intend to take someone else's work and get a profit just for closing their code, I think you would be doing something ethically wrong, unless the owner of that code gives you all the rights. This is as similar as taking a post from another blog and posting it on yours, trying to fool everyone by making them believe that it is from you.
<° That image of dirty regaytonera what? Do you want to compete with Daddy Yankee? XD
Not that it is necessary but it is an option
For that very reason
The blog from which I got it is mine, I wrote it long ago in it, in case I had not cited the source.
Man, it's a drawing, really what I criticize Sandy is putting real girls in bikini bottoms, or putting them all over the posts.
It seems to me a lack of respect towards women.
Man I keep listening to metal, I won't fall as low as that guy hahaha
Man, do you think that girls drawn in bikini (or less ¬.¬) is more decorous than real girls? OMFG !!!
Personally, I find it in very bad taste to see drawings of "animated" girls with little or no clothes, in suggestive poses or exaggeration in their "attributes", it seems to me that you have to be sick or something like that, yes They are real, well, everyone will know how to judge whether it is appropriate or not ...
You have passed the dating age 10 years ago, that's what happens to you hahahaha.
XD, maybe, XD, but I prefer to link something real to something inanimate 😉
The perpetual bachelors is what they have, not wanting to flirt.
Courage, I think the subject of freedoms still confuses you a bit.
There is nothing hypocritical about the GPL license; it is a license well consistent with its objectives.
You see: licenses are not made for authors, but primarily for consumers. The more permissive a license is for consumers, the less it will be for authors, and vice versa.
A license that allows the author to close the code, for example to market it under certain limitations to end users, generally implies that they will no longer have the right to freely use, study, modify and redistribute this new derivative work. In other words, although the author will unquestionably have more freedoms, for the end users the software will no longer be free, because it will deprive them of the four fundamental freedoms of free software.
On the other hand, imagine how you would feel if after spending 5 years developing a project with a BSD license, and just when it started to gain popularity, the following happened: some guy comes along who sees an opportunity to make money, takes your code, he forks it, closes it, and begins to market software exactly like yours or very similar, but with an aggressive advertising campaign, announcing it as if it were a great achievement of its own (and probably without paying you a penny).
If you use Linux it is largely thanks to the GPL license. The BSD license unquestionably also has its place in the world and there are those who prefer it because it allows greater flexibility when combining code from different projects to make a new one, but the GPL simply offers better protection for projects that intend to stay free, because derivative works that include software protected by the GPL must also be distributed with the GPL, which is why it is said that this license has a "viral" character.
If in 5 years you did not achieve anything and someone arrives and takes your code and closes it, then what remedy, your fault will be for not having been better than your competition, for something we live in a free market economy, you must know how to take advantage of opportunities and but rather to eat garlic and onion.
It would not bother me at all if someone commercialized my code, only to see that it is being of benefit to someone because it would make me happy.
It is not that in 5 years you have not achieved anything, but that your project took 5 years to become popular (which is a rather short term).
That person would be attributing achievements that do not correspond to him, and also would not reward the original creators either with improvements to the code or financing. It is not the best license choice for software that one claims to be free (or the source code would not have been released).
With the GPL license the software would also be of benefit to others and yet at least the original author would have the right to see the optimizations made by the derivative works in order to improve his own project.
Now, if what you want is to make proprietary software, nothing prevents (except perhaps the laws of the country) from making a license like this:
This software is entirely my property.
It is strictly forbidden to do this, that, and what else with this software.
Only the author can do whatever he wants with the software, which includes but is not limited to: get data from his computer for my own purposes, make backdoors, break backward compatibility, etc. etc. »
Beyond the one who installs it by clicking accept without looking at the terms (a frequent practice), but I suppose that for the world to be the world there must be everything.
All these licenses really seem like rubbish to me, I don't understand why Linux users are so paranoid about it, because if they are going to steal it from you they will steal it anyway, be it BSD, GPL, CC or whatever.
If you report them, it will give you exactly the same, because the trial will win the one who has the most money and they will give you a sack.
We are not talking here about theft, but about the legal use that licenses allow. The BSD allows you to close the code, the GPL does not. Legally there is a big difference between the two.
The complaints may be true sometimes, but not necessarily always, and in any case it is not an argument to give little importance to the type of license we choose to create a new project.
Amen bro.
I think that a good solution for all this licensing issue would be to make a combination of GPL and BSD. I explain :
1) If the user wants to forke source code and release the modifications, he is allowed
2) If the user wants to forge the source code and make it proprietary, you demand that until he begins to advertise it with a beastly advertising campaign he has to make enough changes until you consider that the forker has had its own merit and you allow him to use it.
I do not know if I have explained myself well and probably someone has misunderstood me, what I am saying is that for so much license roll, the simplest thing would be to decide "dynamically" who you allow to forke and who you do not, that they ask you explicit permission if the fork is closed source, period. And if they don't want to wait for you to attend to the millions of closed fork requests that you have, then let them make a free fork that does not require authorization
Summary
Improvised leave
==================
1) Free code, with the 4 freedoms
2) Free fork, always allowed
3) Private fork, the one who makes the fork has to ask the original developer of the program for permission to decide if the one who makes the fork has had enough merit and has put in enough new code to consider it a separate program. In this way we would prevent someone from adding 3 lines of code and closing the code
regards
The GPL is not "hypocritical" (I still have doubts that it is okay to use that word to define something is public knowledge). The GPL is "know what you want and avoid having it taken away." I am not against BSD at all, only that as long as we are there to choose the licenses or philosophical paths that suit us, it is absurd to place qualities or attitudes typical of a human being in licenses or deals and then talk about these. This in literature is known as "oxymoron", and it seems to me that we should talk more about ourselves and not so much about the things we do. to think no
Looking like this, the GPL limits your freedom, it is telling you what you have or do not have to do, so it is freely privative, it deprives me of the freedom to close a code that I made. If I release a code it is not by ideology or for intentions, but only because I believe that it is the best for him at that moment as well as taking out with a private license. In this case, if you get something with a bsd license, it is so that we all benefit, an example is google chromium (bsd) and its chrome (in principle, a private license)
What one has to read.
I have never read such an awkward article, it shows that you know less than nothing about free software.
That you say that the GNU GPL license is hypocritical is simply stupid, and it is not that it is a radical, you simply do not know anything about the philosophy of free software.
PS: I think people who publish articles on the blog should be chosen a little more.
Needless to say, you would not like a writing course at all, you are also quite bad about that.
After reading the "article" twice if it can be called that, I do not know what the purpose of it is.
I'm sorry if I'm harsh, but when you are not going to prepare a document that contributes something new, you better not do anything. 😉
The goal of the post was "let's talk about the BSD license" ... Goal accomplished.
Hahahaha I don't know anything ???
More than your winbuntosete.
To me No. You tell me if I have to write or not because to begin with you don't send here, you are not from the staff, you are simply the typical troll who comments, leaves and does not return
It will be the last time that I will pass you a comment like this, last.
It is clear?
And by the way, me No. you tell me
Saying that the BSD is freer than the GPL, is like saying that a country "A" is more free and democratic than "B", because slavery is allowed in the first and not in the other. Please don't fall for the fallacy. Making our freedom respected is not attacking it.
They are different things.
Freedom also includes being able to shut down the system.
I agree with the example of slavery. It is like saying that thing A is freer than thing B because A allows freedoms to be taken away. To find out once and for all if this comparison is correct, let's see:
1) Is it to remove freedom to create a closed fork? Yes of course
2) So allowing a closed fork is a license, like the BSD, that allows removing
liberties, that is, they say that their license is more free because it allows forks with non-free license.
What is clear is that it is very difficult to decide this, but hey, the best solution is usually a compromise. I have seen many projects in which there is a combination of licensed code with LGPL or BSD (the libraries), and with GPL (the program). This allows the libraries to be used in proprietary software projects, but not the core of the program.
Greetings!
You cannot compare an inalienable right of the declaration of human rights with software, that example you gave if it is hypocritical.
@courage @ pandev92 If it seems like a good analogy to me, of course, it is in a more limited context. Also the phrase is not mine, I took it out of wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_libre#Licencias_estilo_BSD.
@Courage seems fair to you to close a system that we all made.
It is not a question of whether it seems fair or not, it is a question that the GPL violates a freedom.
Freedom is with all the consequences, if not it is not freedom.
Wikipedia says that other detractors use that phrase of an integral asshole, but that is not why it is an accurate phrase, you cannot compare a right with something that is not a right and that is not included in any constitution, that is what it is called to do demagoguery the same as some presidents of South America (chavez inside)
How can you say that the true free license is the one that allows you to close the system, that is, the one that allows you to take freedom from the rest? Nice way of understanding freedom, the freedom to take freedom from others.
Let's make it clear once and for all, the BSD license is not a free license and BSD is not free software.
Although technically it is * RELATIVELY * correct your conclusion the reality is that the bulk of today's F / LOSS production could not have been possible without the GPL - and that is why it continues to be chosen.
Now where you go wrong is at this point:
The GPL is a truly Free license because IT PROTECTS FREEDOM; Although the initial perception is that it restricts the right to use the code produced as it is sung to us, in reality this is not the case since the GPL looks to the future; it is simply brilliant in its role of guarding the 4 freedoms that the SL must respect.
*** In this sense, what he apparently takes away on the one hand, he returns more than on the other. ***
The BSD, on the other hand, is not a freer license than the GPL but more LIBERTARIAN: although the spirit or intention of the license is to provide maximum and absolute freedom, the result is confusing, unclear, and very, very uncertain. *** If one of the ways of understanding Freedom is "free and unrestricted universal access to knowledge" then the BSD * does not guarantee this free access to knowledge * so it is not truly a Free, libertarian license if -which it is not conducive-, Free NO. ***
To say that the BSD is freer than the GPL is a fallacy, a terrible mistake ... but hey, I understand that it was the best reasoning you could do.
If one of the ways of understanding Freedom is "free and unrestricted universal access to knowledge"
Only knowledge makes us free, autonomous, owners of us and allows us to exercise an analytical criticism, for something is the first thing that _always_ try to corrupt totalitarian government systems ...
To me, a license that allows an individual to take advantage of the work of an entire community, make four changes and can close the license of his product, it seems to me that it does not contribute much to the freedom of software. What's more, the BSD license promotes parasitism by companies and receiving a job already done. A company that steals software from the open source community and resells you a product that in principle is free and open does not deserve any respect.
On the other hand, the GPL license does grant that freedom, and if you have your company, with which you are going to try to obtain your benefits by selling software, you work it out and you create it, do not take advantage of the work of an entire community to live of the story.
Greetings.
Very well expressed.