# [Closed] Confused by the License Agreement.



## ElectricRider (Aug 19, 2011)

I'm a user of PC-BSD and the only place I can find the license is in the OS itself, so I'm posting a copy here for reference and below that, are my questions: (you can skip to my questions below)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



> # $FreeBSD$
> #	@(#)COPYRIGHT	8.2 (Berkeley) 3/21/94
> 
> The compilation of software known as FreeBSD is distributed under the
> ...



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A number of things confuses me. First: "The 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite software is distributed under the following terms:"

What is 4.4BSD and 4.4-Lite referring to?

This document reads to me like it is for the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite software ONLY and would not include any new distributions of FreeBSD or PC-BSD that may or may not contain the above mentioned software.

Is "4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite" what the kernel is called ( I'm guessing)

Does the current versions of FreeBSD and PC-BSD include 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite?

Are the "4.4" version numbers? 

If so, do these versions numbers still apply to today's FreeBSD and PC-BSD?

I am asking because as I understand it from a legal perspective, if 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite is not used in FreeBSD and PC-BSD, or the software is used but with different version numbers, then this copyright license does not apply and FreeBSD and PC-BSD actually has no license.

What about the body of work inside of the FreeBSD and PC-BSD distributions that are Not expressly "4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite" ?

Can someone clear these things up for me. Thank you.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 19, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.4BSD-Lite#4.4BSD_and_descendants


----------



## ElectricRider (Aug 19, 2011)

If I'm reading this right, 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite refers to "Releases" of I assume the Berkley created code.

"In June 1994, 4.4BSD was released in two forms: the freely distributable 4.4BSD-Lite contained no AT&T source, whereas 4.4BSD-Encumbered was available, as earlier releases had been, only to AT&T licensees.

The final release from Berkeley was 1995's 4.4BSD-Lite Release 2, after which the CSRG was dissolved and development of BSD at Berkeley ceased. Since then, several variants based directly or indirectly on 4.4BSD-Lite (such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD) have been maintained."

Is that correct?


----------



## SirDice (Aug 19, 2011)

The FreeBSD family tree: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/misc/bsd-family-tree?rev=1.147



> What about the body of work inside of the FreeBSD and PC-BSD distributions that are Not expressly "4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite" ?


Keep in mind there's a strict separation of the base OS and ports. They are two separate entities. This distinction may be a little blurred on PC-BSD but it's quite clear on FreeBSD. Only the base OS is covered by the BSD license. Each port (x11/gnome2 for instance) has it's own license. Some also have a BSD license but most will have a GPL or derivative.


----------



## ElectricRider (Aug 19, 2011)

SirDice said:
			
		

> The FreeBSD family tree: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/misc/bsd-family-tree?rev=1.147
> 
> 
> Keep in mind there's a strict separation of the base OS and ports. They are two separate entities. This distinction may be a little blurred on PC-BSD but it's quite clear on FreeBSD. Only the base OS is covered by the BSD license. Each port (x11/gnome2 for instance) has it's own license. Some also have a BSD license but most will have a GPL or derivative.




I see.. Hmm What I'm getting at here then, Is this really the right license for FreeBSD or PC-BSD in their current forms?

How far removed from the original 4.4BSD-Lite and or "Base" has the OS gotten over the years? Enough that it no longer resembles in code the former 4.4BSD-Lite release and therefore is not applicable?

It would appear so from that awesome tree you posted.


----------



## ElectricRider (Aug 19, 2011)

SirDice,

 Thank you for posting the Tree it illustrates my concern which is; Is the current License so old and the code for the base so changed from 4.4BSD-Lite that legally it may be no longer valid.

You see this in products all the time, when someone makes an improvement or major change to a product the copyright is no longer valid - it becomes a different, new product requiring a new license agreement to reflect the new status of the newer product.

The FreeBSD devs would not be modifying the 4.4 version anymore, it would be modifying what ever the new version has become. To me, That version needs correct licensing. Therefore the current license may no longer be anything with legal standing. 

Since CSRG was dissolved and development of BSD at Berkeley ceased, they are not going to be able to enforce legally any version that is not 4.4BSD-Lite - Unless I am mistaken somehow, if so, I'd like someone to explain it to me. I would appreciate it.

Thank you.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 19, 2011)

ElectricRider said:
			
		

> Thank you for posting the Tree it illustrates my concern which is; Is the current License so old and the code for the base so changed from 4.4BSD-Lite that legally it may be no longer valid.


The code has changed a lot over the years but it still adheres to the same principles.

The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System


----------



## ElectricRider (Aug 19, 2011)

Interesting reading but that doesn't mean much and if you search histories of legal papers it doesn't stand up in court most of the time. The automobile of today still uses the same principles that was used over 50 years ago and it has also changed much. A copyright from the 40's Ford would not apply to a Ford today, especially if in the 2011 Ford copyright you state that the copyright is to cover a 1940's Ford and all changes to that model.

It would be nice for a legal expert to come around to answer the question. I want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you guys and in turn PC-BSD is covered. I do not like to think one of my favorite software is open to theft. If you look at the bottom of this page, the license is different from the one I found in the OS above. I do not know why this should be. It's way shorter and does by name mention the current date associated with the product (but yet still does not name the product): http://www.pcbsd.org/get-it/download-pc-bsd-isotope#isotope 

How can there be the long version in the OS and the short version on the webpage and they be considered the same when by omission half the license isn't there?


----------



## DutchDaemon (Aug 20, 2011)

This is a FreeBSD _*user*_ community, we're not legal professionals dealing with software licenses on a daily basis. We don't even represent the FreeBSD operating system (let alone its derivative PC-BSD, which has its own forums and community) in any formal capacity. 

Try a proper legal professional or contact the FreeBSD Project (a.k.a. http://www.freebsd.org/, see http://www.freebsd.org/administration.html), the 'owner' of FreeBSD. The FreeBSD *forums* are a mere extension / community tool, not the official legal department or spokesperson for the FreeBSD operating system, nor do the people in those positions frequent these forums in an official capacity (if at all).


----------



## ElectricRider (Aug 20, 2011)

Well. you pointed me in the right direction at least. 

Thank You.


----------

