GPLv3 to drive users from Linux to FreeBSD?

GPLv3 will help FreeBSD take some users away from Linux, according to the founder and vice president of The FreeBSD Foundation.

Writing in the FreeBSD Foundation's August newsletter, Justin T. Gibbs said "GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial users of open source software.

"Against the backdrop of GPLv3, the stark difference between the BSD licensing philosophy and that of the Free Software Foundation are only too clear," he said.

One difference Gibbs saw was future-proofing the licences.

"A GPL proponent might argue that a licence for free software must be upgraded periodically since we cannot anticipate what new use models for free software might be developed that restrict freedom. The BSD licence is as permissive as possible exactly because we cannot predict the future or to what beneficial purpose (commercial or otherwise) our software will be used," said Gibbs.

Citing high support costs and an inability to guarantee adherence to specification for licensing, Gibbs said "now was perfect time to clarify the differences [between GPLv3 and BSD licenses] and start to engage with large current and potential users of open source software to understand their use models and how the GPLv3 might impact them".

Gibbs said the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an effective response to GPLv3 and he implored the community to make the most of the opportunity it provided.

• Related stories

• Alerts

Add your opinion

FreeBSD people are not consistentAnonymous -- 12/09/07

FreeBSD people are complaining about GPL by saying the license differences allow code flow from FreeBSD to GPL, but not the reverse. While this is true, it is no worse than the one-way flow from FreeBSD to commerical use. Consequently, the FreeBSD complaint about GPL is not fair or consistent. They are pretending to be advocates for the free use of software, when in fact they are implicitly arguing for the right of users to restrict it.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Actually that is consistent with the BSD licenseAnonymous -- 12/09/07 (in reply to #320085979)

So yes, they are being consistent. True freedom according to BSD advocates means you are free to do anything with the code provided you preserve the license and do not claim the work as your own. It's simple, doesn't need a bunch of lawyers to interpret and in practice lends itself to most of the co-operation that the UNIX world has benefitted from since the original Berkeley days.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Complaint?Anonymous -- 12/09/07 (in reply to #320085979)

What complaint? What are you talking about?

The BSD license is pretty clear about what is allowed and not allowed. You don't need a team of lawyers to understand it.

Can you think of any license that is more restrictive than the GPL?

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

GPL is worse than binary.Anonymous -- 14/09/07 (in reply to #320085979)

May I just make a few corrections?

1, "commercial use" is not the opposite of free and open source software. Even GPL software are used commercially, e.g. bind, apache, etc...

2, So I guess what you really meant by "no worse than the one-way flow from FreeBSD to commerical use." is where BSD Licensed code flow to commercial companies end up being close source only... and in fact, you are correct, this is no worse than flowing code to GPL because often it is BETTER than flowing to GPL. The reason is simple, very often even these commercial company do give code back to the original developers, whereas GPL'd code have absolutely no chance of flowing back.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

apache is not GPL.Anonymous -- 03/11/07 (in reply to #320086139)

It's BSD licensed

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Nice tryAnonymous -- 12/09/07

Linus Torvalds has already made it perfectly clear that he will not be using the GPLv3 for the linux kernel, period.

I have nothing against the FreeBSD Foundation trying to get new users, but trying to do so in this manner not only shrieks of desperation, but is outright deceptive.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Deceptive? Not.Anonymous -- 12/09/07 (in reply to #320085995)

How is this type of behaviour deceptive? The original post makes perfect sense and does not mis-state any facts vis-a-vis the BSD or GPL licenses. The GPLs are viral, BSD licenses are not, and that is a compelling reason for commercial users of FOSS to avoid the GPL, or at least to be very careful where they step when using the GPL. The original post is simply asking that the BSD community take advantage of this and use it to draw more people from the GPL world into the BSD world.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

FUD Series by BSDKiran -- 13/09/07

It's a shame to see such FUD perpetrated under the BSD banner, when there is actually so much more that the communities of Linux and BSD have in common than that which separates them. The only thing I have as bad is this is that NetBSD spinoff company that promotes their own embedded BSD version (Wasabi).

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Dear Steve B...it's working!Anonymous -- 18/09/07

...look how easily these guys can be destabilised.

They are easily distracted from the core task of writing good code. If you can keep this latest kerfuffle going ...if you can _keep_ them distracted and angry at each other....your business model will be safe for at least another 5 years...

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

• Just In

• Most Popular

• Most Discussed

Reader Services

Popular Topics

Essentials