Essay:BSD and GPL

Two of the most common free software licenses are the BSD and GPL licenses. There has been continuing discussion over the relative merits of the use of either license in free software projects.

The BSD license essentially allows the user of source code released under this license to act upon it with very few restrictions. This means that code released under this license can be used in both open source and closed source situations. Proponents of copyleft-style software licenses such as the GPL argue that the non-copyleft nature of the BSD license becomes detrimental to open source in general, as it does not expressly require that users who extend BSD-licensed software must openly release their modifications. However, it is counter-argued that the non-copyleft nature of the BSD license encourages inclusion of well-developed standard code into closed source projects, and it is further argued that licenses such as the GPL discourages this, forcing people who wish to develop closed source projects to reinvent the wheel to maintain their ability to keep the project closed source, doing it in possibly a less-efficient way than the open source version does it (as it has been open to more scrutiny and patching).

The BSD and GPL licenses require substantially different business models to be used in order to generate income from work done coding. The BSD license allows commercial organizations to build upon the inventions of free software and research environments that use free software licenses to further develop their programs. A recent and successful example of this is the Mac OS operating system, based on parts of the BSD code. The GPL, on the other hand, requires that commercial ventures using GPL-licensed software adopt a business model of providing programming and support services to particular clients to generate cash flow, rather than the creation of commodity products to distribute through retail channels while relying upon the copyright monopoly to fend off competitors from selling identical or substantially similar products. While the GPL does not prohibit anyone from selling GPL-licensed software, it does not permit software to be encumbered with restrictions that would prevent a purchaser from giving away copies of either the executable or the source code for free. Programmers must take into account the business model they are operating under when choosing the licensing regime that will apply to their code.

Those who advocate the use of copyleft licenses such as the GPL argue that the requirement that software licensed under the GPL allows the freedom to copy, use, study, modify, and distribute the source code, with the advantage that other improvements to GPL-licensed software are ensured with its requirement that the extensions to the software be freely available as well. However, it is said by some that the requirement that the source code be also freely available does not give the user "freedom" to make closed source software under such a license, though this "freedom" is not one of four freedoms of Free software as outlined by the Free Software Foundation, which also holds that denying others their freedom by withholding source code from them is not a "freedom", rather a form of power. GPL supporters often point out that since BSD licensed code allows distribution of closed source modified versions, that the work of the contributor has been "stolen", and as such is not fair and therefore no code should be licensed under BSD-style licenses—however, the original free, BSD licensed code is still available for all to use and improve, with the copyrights still remaining to the author.

Traditionally, Linux associated software is licensed under the GPL, whilst BSD derivatives often use the BSD license. Code licensed under the BSD license can be relicensed under the GPL (the BSD license is said to be "GPL-compatible") without securing the consent of all original authors; but code under the GPL cannot be relicensed under the BSD license without securing the consent of all original authors, as the BSD license does not necessarily require the source code to be again freely available.

The advertising clause

The original BSD license contains a clause requiring acknowledgments to appear in all advertising materials mentioning the software (see BSD license). The GNU project calls this clause "obnoxious", citing the requirement for 75 such acknowledgments when advertising a 1997 version of NetBSD. They also point out that this makes the license incompatible with the GPL because it adds a requirement not present in the GPL. Since then, the clause was officially removed from the original BSD distribution, and other BSD distributions followed suit, but NetBSD still uses the original version of the license.

External links

• Freedom or Power? (Free Software Foundation) — describing "freedom" as freedom for all instead of one
• The BSD License Problem (Free Software Foundation) — advocacy against the advertising clause
• Open-Source Licensing: BSD is a better model (NetworkWorld.com) advocacy for the BSD license

This article contains content from Wikipedia. Current versions of the GNU FDL article BSD and GPL licensing on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article

WP