5 ms·

License: """ Copyright ©2018. The Regents of the University of California (Regents). All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute thi

License: """ Copyright ©2018. The Regents of the University of California (Regents). All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, without fee and without a signed licensing agreement; and permission use, copy, modify and distribute this software for commercial purposes (such rights not subject to transfer) to BDD member and its affiliates, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions. Contact The Office of Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 510, Berkeley, CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, otl@berkeley.edu, http://ipira.berkeley.edu/industry-info http://ipira.berkeley.edu/industry-info for commercial licensing opportunities. IN NO EVENT SHALL REGENTS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. REGENTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS". REGENTS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. """

paxy 8y ago
BDD = Berkeley Deep Drive (https://deepdrive.berkeley.edu/ https://deepdrive.berkeley.edu/)
rectang 8y ago
If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction because only Berkeley Deep Dive members can use it for commercial purposes. EDIT: The title of this HN topic is wrong. It's not what's in the source and it to be changed. (I'm relieved that it's just a submitter summarizing incorrectly and that Berkeley Deep Dive was not responsible for this mistake.)
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction How do usage terms dictate whether the source is open?
  - rectang 8y ago
    "Open" is not just whether you get to see it. Among other things, it's whether the software is open for all users to modify. The Open Source Definition is curated by the Open Source Initiative and has been stable for many years. A huge industry rests on top of it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses. Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        > Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all. I wasn't saying copyleft imposes restrictions on usage. The first "open-source" criterion says the following (and note that, like you said, this is a restriction on redistribution and not usage): > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. We both agree GPL places a restriction on redistribution (namely: that it must be with source code). However, criterion #1 says very clearly that the license can't place restrictions on software redistribution when it's aggregated with software from different sources. This is a pretty clear contradiction to me. The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So I don't see how we get to ignore this and cherry-pick what restrictions actually fall under "restrictions"...

paxy 8y ago

BDD = Berkeley Deep Drive (https://deepdrive.berkeley.edu/ https://deepdrive.berkeley.edu/)

rectang 8y ago

If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction because only Berkeley Deep Dive members can use it for commercial purposes. EDIT: The title of this HN topic is wrong. It's not what's in the source and it to be changed. (I'm relieved that it's just a submitter summarizing incorrectly and that Berkeley Deep Dive was not responsible for this mistake.)

mehrdadn 8y ago
> If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction How do usage terms dictate whether the source is open?
- rectang 8y ago
  "Open" is not just whether you get to see it. Among other things, it's whether the software is open for all users to modify. The Open Source Definition is curated by the Open Source Initiative and has been stable for many years. A huge industry rests on top of it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses. Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        > Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all. I wasn't saying copyleft imposes restrictions on usage. The first "open-source" criterion says the following (and note that, like you said, this is a restriction on redistribution and not usage): > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. We both agree GPL places a restriction on redistribution (namely: that it must be with source code). However, criterion #1 says very clearly that the license can't place restrictions on software redistribution when it's aggregated with software from different sources. This is a pretty clear contradiction to me. The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So I don't see how we get to ignore this and cherry-pick what restrictions actually fall under "restrictions"...