5 ms·

The BSD license is definitely open source. It’s just not ‘free software’ in the FSF sense.

by mnd999 5y ago

snvzz 5y ago
BSD license absolutely is "free software" in the FSF sense. The four freedoms are guaranteed by it, and it is even listed explicitly in their list of free software licenses.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > The four freedoms are guaranteed by it Nope. The BSD license does not guarantee source to users. It's very free in that it places minimal restrictions what can be done with, but it doesn't guarantee the four freedoms to people who (for instance) receive binaries of modified works. I'm not saying it's bad because of this, I don't want to start a flame war here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - snvzz 5y ago
    GNU+FSF[0], OSI[1] and me disagree with you. But you can have your own opinion, sure. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [1]: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
    - Nursie 5y ago
      It's hardly just my opinion, there's a lot of opinion out there on the web that agrees with me. It's very hard to see how this definition on the OSI site - "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge" Fits licenses like BSD/MIT license which do not require source access to be provided. And the FSF say this - "To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words" So they give themselves pretty loose rules for inclusion there. I would say that the BSD license, with its very few restrictions, is definitely open source and its spirit is all about freedom. But I really don't see that it supports the four freedoms, specifically freedom 2 (from the FSF site here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) - "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
      - snvzz 5y ago
        Yes, it very well is possible to have an even more extreme view than the GNU project.
        Nursie 5y ago
        I'm sorry, what's extreme about my view? I didn't say they weren't worthwhile, nor that they weren't open source, nor that they aren't free. Do you disagree with my evaluation above? If so how? I'm genuinely curious because I've been unable to mentally reconcile the OSI listing BSD licenses for years now. It scarcely matters one way or the other, it's not like the OSI is the ultimate moral arbiter of all that is good and right in the world. It just seems oddly inconsistent.
        snvzz 5y ago
        I agree with FSF and OSI respective definitions of free software and open source. I also agree with their interpretation of BSD licenses and recognition as free software and open source respectively. The OSI (and FSF) aren't the "ultimate moral arbiters of all that is good and right in the world". They do, however, represent me, and you'll find, a majority of people who care about free and open source software. You're, of course, free to advocate whatever you want. I would suggest directing your efforts at convincing OSI/GNU/FSF to adopt your interpretation, where BSD runs counter to the four freedoms and reclassify BSD licenses as a start. Should that fail, you can consider starting some sort of alternative such organization. If your views are indeed shared with many, there's a good chance it can gain traction. But only if that's the case. As this is straying far into offtopic for the associated story, my end will not post further replies on this thread. I kindly request the same from yours.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > I agree with FSF and OSI respective definitions of free software and open source. > I also agree with their interpretation of BSD licenses and recognition as free software and open source respectively. These seem to be in conflict here, as pointed out above, and your responses to my honest questions about this are not enlightening, in fact quite the contrary - you seem to be getting annoyed and are accusing me of having some sort of agenda. > You're, of course, free to advocate whatever you want. I'm not advocating anything. I'm certainly not advocating reclassification of any licenses. I'm not sure why this conversation is putting your back up so much. > my end will not post further replies on this thread. That's probably for the best, it seems to be upsetting you.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Four my reading of the four freedoms, none of these apply to BSD code. > FREEDOM 0: This says that the user has the right to use the software as well as according to his/her needs. Code containing BSD licensed components doesn't guarantee this to the user, since they are typically further constrained by EULAs and the like. > FREEDOM 1: This says that the user can study the working of the software and make changes to meet his/her requirements to have the desired results. Here to make changes to a program, having its source code is a precondition. Code containing BSD licensed components don't require giving the user the source. > FREEDOM 2: This says that the user has the right to redistribute the copies of the software to help out others that may require the same. Code containing BSD licensed components commonly restricts users from redistrbuting. > FREEDOM 3: This is an extended version of Freedom 2 which says that the user can also provide others with copies of the software in which they’ve made modifications by doing this the developer allows the community an opportunity to benefit from his/her changes. Also, having its source code is a precondition here as well. Once again, code containing BSD components frequently doesn't grant the user access to the source.
  - rectang 5y ago
    Source code which is presented under the BSD license satisfies the Four Freedoms. Compiled binaries derived in whole or in part from BSD-licensed source do not on their own satisfy the Four Freedoms. You need the source. But if you have the source, that's sufficient. > Code containing BSD licensed components doesn't guarantee this to the user, since they are typically further constrained by EULAs and the like. Source code which is available under a BSD license is available under BSD, full stop. If the software is constrained by a EULA, then it's not actually BSD-licensed. If you are the copyright holder, you might also issue the software under another license. But there's not much point to dual licensing when one of the licenses is BSD — a downstream user only has to satisfy the minimal requirements of the BSD license to keep their license to use the software, and they need not satisfy more onerous requirements to get a second license to use the same software. > Code containing BSD licensed components don't require giving the user the source. If you have the source, you have the source. The requirement is already satisfied. The BSD license doesn't guarantee you access to modifications, or to other code used alongside the BSD-licensed code. But that's not what's at issue — that's a copyleft requirement, not a Free Software requirement. > Once again, code containing BSD components frequently doesn't grant the user access to the source. It is true that the provider of a proprietary binary which incorporates BSD code is not required to provide you the source code that they used. But again, that's not what's at issue. These arguments advocate for strong copyleft licenses, which are a subset of Free Software.
openfuture 5y ago
BSD is free software in the FSF sense. It isn't copyleft though.
- seanw444 5y ago
  Yeah I think they were meaning it's not copyleft, just didn't phrase it the right way.
bragr 5y ago
It's not about the license really. It's just that I see no real reason why we should consider all the propriety implementations of RISC-V any materially more open source than any random ARM processor. Either way we know the ISA but little of the internals and can't practically audit or change them.
- snvzz 5y ago
  The implementation that's being talked about, C906, is actually open source. Obviously, everybody gets a free license to RISC-V, and most implementations are proprietary. This doesn't mean there aren't any open implementations; C906 is one of many.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  It's open source in that you can use the original code/design as you please in your implementation. I don't think anyone is stating that it's open source in terms of copyleft/gpl

The BSD license is definitely open source. It’s just not ‘free software’ in the FSF sense.

by mnd999 5y ago

The BSD license is definitely open source. It’s just not ‘free software’ in the FSF sense.

BSD license absolutely is "free software" in the FSF sense. The four freedoms are guaranteed by it, and it is even listed explicitly in their list of free software licenses.

Nursie 5y ago
> The four freedoms are guaranteed by it Nope. The BSD license does not guarantee source to users. It's very free in that it places minimal restrictions what can be done with, but it doesn't guarantee the four freedoms to people who (for instance) receive binaries of modified works. I'm not saying it's bad because of this, I don't want to start a flame war here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- snvzz 5y ago
  GNU+FSF[0], OSI[1] and me disagree with you. But you can have your own opinion, sure. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [1]: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
  - Nursie 5y ago
    It's hardly just my opinion, there's a lot of opinion out there on the web that agrees with me. It's very hard to see how this definition on the OSI site - "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge" Fits licenses like BSD/MIT license which do not require source access to be provided. And the FSF say this - "To decide whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise words" So they give themselves pretty loose rules for inclusion there. I would say that the BSD license, with its very few restrictions, is definitely open source and its spirit is all about freedom. But I really don't see that it supports the four freedoms, specifically freedom 2 (from the FSF site here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) - "The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
    - snvzz 5y ago
      Yes, it very well is possible to have an even more extreme view than the GNU project.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        I'm sorry, what's extreme about my view? I didn't say they weren't worthwhile, nor that they weren't open source, nor that they aren't free. Do you disagree with my evaluation above? If so how? I'm genuinely curious because I've been unable to mentally reconcile the OSI listing BSD licenses for years now. It scarcely matters one way or the other, it's not like the OSI is the ultimate moral arbiter of all that is good and right in the world. It just seems oddly inconsistent.
        snvzz 5y ago
        I agree with FSF and OSI respective definitions of free software and open source. I also agree with their interpretation of BSD licenses and recognition as free software and open source respectively. The OSI (and FSF) aren't the "ultimate moral arbiters of all that is good and right in the world". They do, however, represent me, and you'll find, a majority of people who care about free and open source software. You're, of course, free to advocate whatever you want. I would suggest directing your efforts at convincing OSI/GNU/FSF to adopt your interpretation, where BSD runs counter to the four freedoms and reclassify BSD licenses as a start. Should that fail, you can consider starting some sort of alternative such organization. If your views are indeed shared with many, there's a good chance it can gain traction. But only if that's the case. As this is straying far into offtopic for the associated story, my end will not post further replies on this thread. I kindly request the same from yours.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > I agree with FSF and OSI respective definitions of free software and open source. > I also agree with their interpretation of BSD licenses and recognition as free software and open source respectively. These seem to be in conflict here, as pointed out above, and your responses to my honest questions about this are not enlightening, in fact quite the contrary - you seem to be getting annoyed and are accusing me of having some sort of agenda. > You're, of course, free to advocate whatever you want. I'm not advocating anything. I'm certainly not advocating reclassification of any licenses. I'm not sure why this conversation is putting your back up so much. > my end will not post further replies on this thread. That's probably for the best, it seems to be upsetting you.
monocasa 5y ago
Four my reading of the four freedoms, none of these apply to BSD code. > FREEDOM 0: This says that the user has the right to use the software as well as according to his/her needs. Code containing BSD licensed components doesn't guarantee this to the user, since they are typically further constrained by EULAs and the like. > FREEDOM 1: This says that the user can study the working of the software and make changes to meet his/her requirements to have the desired results. Here to make changes to a program, having its source code is a precondition. Code containing BSD licensed components don't require giving the user the source. > FREEDOM 2: This says that the user has the right to redistribute the copies of the software to help out others that may require the same. Code containing BSD licensed components commonly restricts users from redistrbuting. > FREEDOM 3: This is an extended version of Freedom 2 which says that the user can also provide others with copies of the software in which they’ve made modifications by doing this the developer allows the community an opportunity to benefit from his/her changes. Also, having its source code is a precondition here as well. Once again, code containing BSD components frequently doesn't grant the user access to the source.
- rectang 5y ago
  Source code which is presented under the BSD license satisfies the Four Freedoms. Compiled binaries derived in whole or in part from BSD-licensed source do not on their own satisfy the Four Freedoms. You need the source. But if you have the source, that's sufficient. > Code containing BSD licensed components doesn't guarantee this to the user, since they are typically further constrained by EULAs and the like. Source code which is available under a BSD license is available under BSD, full stop. If the software is constrained by a EULA, then it's not actually BSD-licensed. If you are the copyright holder, you might also issue the software under another license. But there's not much point to dual licensing when one of the licenses is BSD — a downstream user only has to satisfy the minimal requirements of the BSD license to keep their license to use the software, and they need not satisfy more onerous requirements to get a second license to use the same software. > Code containing BSD licensed components don't require giving the user the source. If you have the source, you have the source. The requirement is already satisfied. The BSD license doesn't guarantee you access to modifications, or to other code used alongside the BSD-licensed code. But that's not what's at issue — that's a copyleft requirement, not a Free Software requirement. > Once again, code containing BSD components frequently doesn't grant the user access to the source. It is true that the provider of a proprietary binary which incorporates BSD code is not required to provide you the source code that they used. But again, that's not what's at issue. These arguments advocate for strong copyleft licenses, which are a subset of Free Software.

openfuture 5y ago

BSD is free software in the FSF sense. It isn't copyleft though.

seanw444 5y ago
Yeah I think they were meaning it's not copyleft, just didn't phrase it the right way.

bragr 5y ago

It's not about the license really. It's just that I see no real reason why we should consider all the propriety implementations of RISC-V any materially more open source than any random ARM processor. Either way we know the ISA but little of the internals and can't practically audit or change them.

snvzz 5y ago
The implementation that's being talked about, C906, is actually open source. Obviously, everybody gets a free license to RISC-V, and most implementations are proprietary. This doesn't mean there aren't any open implementations; C906 is one of many.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It's open source in that you can use the original code/design as you please in your implementation. I don't think anyone is stating that it's open source in terms of copyleft/gpl