Other BSD license and programming language does it matter

8bitGlitch

8bitGlitch

I am looking at the differences between GPL and BSD - does it matter if the program language is GPL if you wanted to release a project as BSD license? I wanted to use Java; however, the great Oracle has me second guessing that choice.

Python, I think... has a BSD like license that is compatible with GNU, but I am not sure if this all maters if I wanted to have this project as BSD.
 
I am going to avoid the debate as to which type of license is better because it is best if you research the pros and cons of both!

However, when programming languages and tools are concerned, neither licenses exclude the ability to release code under different licenses.

You could even use a compiler under a properietary license (i.e Microsoft's Visual C++ (cl)) and release your code under a different license. It is also fairly rare that their EULA prevents this.

Perhaps the only thing I would avoid is proprietary / non-free tools like (Unity, Flash) or those backed by big companies (.NET, Java) because once the company goes kaput, the tools always die too. Even if they are "free", they are often too large for communities to adopt or the licenses too restrictive for another company to take forward.
 
At a minimum, look for a GPL linking exception.

I have no problem with tools under license A while my code goes under license B. What your code needs to run is more important.
 
Compilers have license not the programming language. You can find C compilers with any license - see the tables. For the final product is more important the license of platform/environment. You can choose the license for the output of compiler but the libraries which will be linked statically or dynamically by the executable may limit it (mostly if they are GPL).
 
8bitGlitch said:
I am looking at the differences between GPL and BSD - does it matter if the program language is GPL if you wanted to release a project as BSD license? I wanted to use Java; however, the great Oracle has me second guessing that choice.

Python, I think... has a BSD like license that is compatible with GNU, but I am not sure if this all maters if I wanted to have this project as BSD.
Click to expand...
You can use gcc to compile a project with a bsd license, for example. If you, say, wanted to package gcc with your code then you're in strife.
I don't believe bytecode languages like you specify are a problem unless, again, you package other 'libraries' that use gpl with them. Avoid that, you are safe.
Need I say this is why, in the main, we have such huge amount of dependencies in open source software: that viral gpl junk.
(That's my opinion of course and I've yet to see evidence to dispel it)
 
If you copied source from GPL program, your program source needs to be GPL aswell, what means it has to be public (f.e. github). F.e. Android has Linux GPL kernel and Android must be GPL.

If you copied source from BSD program, you can treat it as yours. F.e. PlayStation OS is FreeBSD fork and its Sony full proprietary.

GPL Program can be included only in program with GPL license. You can use BSD code with GPL code but it becomes GPL.
It is sometimes problem, f.e. theoretically Linux devs can copy BSDs while BSDs devs cannot copy Linux code.
 
This is true but the OP's worry seems to be them having a BSD license (which is good) and using tools licensed under GPL and all its manifestations (which is ok).
 
Well imo GPL has nice sense in Science software or f.e games like chess, minecraft (or Metin2 ofc).

In fact lots of people doesn't care at all about licences. Lots of researchers at my uni (automation branch) know only term "freeware" and they copy things like you would from math book.
 
mark_j said:
This is true but the OP's worry seems to be them having a BSD license (which is good) and using tools licensed under GPL and all its manifestations (which is ok).
Click to expand...
This is spot on! I want to release my final application as BSD license; however, currently I am developing in Python for proof of concept. With the idea to port to Golang. I was worried if the solution had hooks into libraries or links to say Python libs or such... then I could not release the app as BSD if I used some library that was GPL. I am confused by it all, and that might be confusing others, so I do apologize.
 
Well (in my opinion) you should be applauded for using BSD-style license, but as you've discovered this is but the start of the minefield.
Basically, so long as the end-user has control and merges GPL with BSD then you're safe. That is, at runtime, it doesn't matter if the code is GPL or BSD.

The GPL is basically concerned with allowing everyone to access & change the code; the trouble is it insists on everyone following this same edict. Hence its viral-ness.

So distribute your code as BSD with imports from libraries, safe in the knowledge that GPL doesn't apply even if those modules are GPL.
 
mark_j said:
Well (in my opinion) you should be applauded for using BSD-style license, but as you've discovered this is but the start of the minefield.
Basically, so long as the end-user has control and merges GPL with BSD then you're safe. That is, at runtime, it doesn't matter if the code is GPL or BSD.

The GPL is basically concerned with allowing everyone to access & change the code; the trouble is it insists on everyone following this same edict. Hence its viral-ness.

So distribute your code as BSD with imports from libraries, safe in the knowledge that GPL doesn't apply even if those modules are GPL.
Click to expand...
I am not a programmer by trade, but I do program small scripts and utilities that help me. However, I have a need to develop a true solution and after reading the GPL and BSD, the BSD makes more sense and for the future of the application, yet I could be wrong.
 
Here's the rub:

You use BSD license, people can take it, add to it and place it under GPL. This DOES NOT affect your license, you will always own your code.
BUT
You can't take back those changes/enhancements made under GPL. It's a one-way street.

If you're ok with that, then proceed. You could also use the BSD license with the advertising clause. This has been deemed incompatible with any GPL so this would prevent anyone using your BSD code, adding stuff with a GPL license (not allowed) and licensing the entire thing as GPL.
You could also specifically disclaim GPL in the license, but then why bother? It's not worth the effort, IMHO.

This is why licensing and the GPL is a pain in the backside. Most of the time it's unenforceable and just a waste of time and a source of confusion for people who just want to code.

You could also release it "all rights reserved" then no one can have it.
 
I remember using gtk3. Their gnu lesser general public license has some parts saying "if you compile your code with gtk header files..." and "if you link to our libraries"..

So just take a few minutes (and a coffee). Read the relevant parts of the license you want to use. That is safest approach. ;D
 
Elazar said:
I remember using gtk3. Their gnu lesser general public license has some parts saying "if you compile your code with gtk header files..." and "if you link to our libraries"..

So just take a few minutes (and a coffee). Read the relevant parts of the license you want to use. That is safest approach. ;D
Click to expand...
That just reinforces my statement; the GPL, of whatever manifestation, is a pox on true open source software.

That said, I think those gtk header files are for derived works. Just as you can use linux header files in a BSD licensed code because it's not a derived work.

But as I will again reiterate, the GPL set of licenses are a disgusting viral pox on software.

One day I will tell you how I really think.;)
 
mark_j said:
You could also use the BSD license with the advertising clause. This has been deemed incompatible with any GPL
Click to expand...

This is quite interesting. Do you have a link to any specific license using that? Seeing the effects of GPL LibreOffice unrelentlessly sucking dry OpenOffice (and then splurging all their donations on trying to build a subscription cloud version), it would be quite cool to know ways to counteract this with the BSD license.
 
I had no idea that it provided such an issue with the GPL just because of that ;).

Well, I for one am happy to embrace the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. At least until the GPL gets fixed to actually achieve what it is meant to.
 
kpedersen said:
I had no idea that it provided such an issue with the GPL just because of that ;).

Well, I for one am happy to embrace the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. At least until the GPL gets fixed to actually achieve what it is meant to.
Click to expand...
Yes, isn't it lovely that an "obnoxious advertising clause" defeats the obnoxious GPL. :)
 
As i understand from the FreeBSD article, licenses does not protect the source(code, artwork, documentation etc.), but community does that. So believe in your own community and the public. That is the solution for me.
 
I am working on a new license based on BSD 3 Clause and BSD 2 Clause, it has a name Broad Netwide General Public License, yes i know it seems like GNU General Public License but General + Public words not only for GNU Community and derivatives

I will focus on service level agreement, artwork, code of conduct and all things that a company need for non-profit and commercial issues and tasks

How does that sound ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top