# BSD License in Linux?



## Stringer (Aug 16, 2011)

As the title follow I wonder if there is an possible to actually have either BSD Licensed library or even an distribution under BSD License in an Linux environment, without having Richard Stallman / other GPL License fanatics knocking on my front door demand take another distribution?

Since I'm getting rather tired having to feel forced, with ever little detail I do and the unfairness of not having BSD licensed software in the Package tree but have others.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 16, 2011)

You can add things with a BSD license. You can't however create a new distribution under a BSD license because the linux kernel and several other bits and pieces are GPL'ed and thus cannot change their license.


----------



## Stringer (Aug 16, 2011)

Aha, so as long as it is within the userland it's fine to have BSD License but Library, kernel, etc. Isn't possible?


----------



## SirDice (Aug 16, 2011)

Stringer said:
			
		

> Aha, so as long as it is within the userland it's fine to have BSD License but Library, kernel, etc. Isn't possible?



It's not so much the difference between kernel or userland. You simply cannot change an existing license. 

Now, if you were to create a brand new Linux kernel written from scratch you can give it a BSD license. Add some BSD licensed userland stuff and you can create a BSD licensed Linux. But that does mean you'll have to write _everything_ from scratch and you can't "borrow" code from the existing (GPL'ed) kernel.


----------



## namor (Aug 16, 2011)

GPL's copyleft means (in your case), once you *link* your (BSD) code against a GPL library, the distribution of both effectively becomes GPL.

Everything that's in the kernel (modules for instance) must, thus, be GPL. (they link against the kernel sources)



			
				Stringer said:
			
		

> Aha, so as long as it is within the userland it's fine to have BSD License but Library, kernel, etc. Isn't possible?



Libraries can be BSD too, if they don't link against the kernel. (There should be some non-gpl'ed kernel interfaces, though. Otherwise, the libc could not be without copyleft, could it?)


----------



## graudeejs (Aug 16, 2011)

SirDice said:
			
		

> It's not so much the difference between kernel or userland. You simply cannot change an existing license.
> 
> Now, if you were to create a brand new Linux kernel written from scratch you can give it a BSD license. Add some BSD licensed userland stuff and you can create a BSD licensed Linux. But that does mean you'll have to write _everything_ from scratch and you can't "borrow" code from the existing (GPL'ed) kernel.



The only thing, you also need to name it differently. You can't make clone and call it same name.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 16, 2011)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> The only thing, you also need to name it differently. You can't make clone and call it same name.



Yeah, but that's because of other reasons (trademarks?). I'm not 100% sure but you can't copyright a name, so the name "linux" isn't covered by the GPL.


----------



## xibo (Aug 16, 2011)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that's because of other reasons (trademarks?). I'm not 100% sure but you can't copyright a name, so the name "linux" isn't covered by the GPL.


I'm sure there are enough GNU zealots that would manage to sue you never the less after having found something in the GPL you didn't know of even after having readt it a dozen times.
And even if you can keep the GNU evangelists at distance, google would sue you because you certainly had some of "their" patented "technology" in mind.



			
				SirDice said:
			
		

> Now, if you were to create a brand new Linux kernel written from scratch you can give it a BSD license


If it's a linux that is supposed to work, and be maintainable, that would be required to begin with.


----------



## ElectricRider (Aug 19, 2011)

Also, you Can release an OS or any software under multiple licenses. This is done all the time, you just have to make sure you don't cross the intents of each license and comply with the agreement of each license. You can mix and match, you cannot blend.


----------



## NewGuy (Aug 20, 2011)

Stringer said:
			
		

> As the title follow I wonder if there is an possible to actually have either BSD Licensed library or even an distribution under BSD License in an Linux environment, without having Richard Stallman / other GPL License fanatics knocking on my front door demand take another distribution?
> 
> Since I'm getting rather tired having to feel forced, with ever little detail I do and the unfairness of not having BSD licensed software in the Package tree but have others.



Yes, you can add BSD licensed software (programs and libraries) to a Linux distribution. Most Linux distros contains BSD-licensed code. The OpenSSL library, for example, I think is BSD licensed and exists in almost every Linux distro.

The only time you have to worry about the GPL camp knocking at your door is if you link your code to a GPLed program and then redistribute it.


----------

