# Proprietary Copyright



## aladdin (Mar 14, 2010)

Hi,

I would like to make a commercial operating system derived from FreeBSD. What would be the best way to handle licensing? I was thinking the following would be sufficient (just a quick example below):


```
-----------------------------------------------

(c)2010 My Company

MY OS contains proprietary software, images, and other data. No re-distribution, hacking, etc...

MY OS also contains code derived from the FreeBSD project which is covered by the following license:

(INSERT BSD LICENSE HERE)


-----------------------------------------------
```


I think this is what Apple does although I haven't read through all their license material.   I can't leave everything licensed under the BSD license otherwise end users could just give copies to their friends for free.

Thanks for any help.


----------



## Jago (Mar 14, 2010)

If you are serious, you want to hire a lawyer.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 14, 2010)

You'll definitely have to be careful, because, while all of the FreeBSD licensed stuff is probably safe to include with nothing more than the license notice and attribution (and the beer-ware stuff is pretty safe, too), there is a certain amount of GPL code in the base, which should probably be gone over by a competent lawyer.


----------



## Zare (Mar 14, 2010)

> I can't leave everything licensed under the BSD license otherwise end users could just give copies to their friends for free.



Boo-whoo. Shame on them.


----------



## psycho (Mar 14, 2010)

Zare said:
			
		

> Boo-whoo. Shame on them.


hahahahahahahaha!


----------



## aladdin (Mar 15, 2010)

Thanks for the replies, I will indeed speak with a lawyer.

My project will probably not be too big on the internet as I intend to focus on my business clients, so don't expect to see any release announcements.


----------



## Zare (Mar 15, 2010)

Look, are you sure that you need to modify kernel & userland that much, so you need to close the source?

I mean, if you want to enable particular hardware functionality and / or other kernel-related stuff, you can always write your own licensed proprietary closed-source modules. Your userland stuff can be closed source too.

That way you don't have to encapsulate whole system and you can avoid legal issues and expenses.

If you can give us a rough description of your project, we can help you out with the issue, and figure out if you can write your own proprietary system addons without interfering with base system code.


----------



## aladdin (Mar 15, 2010)

Basically I'm going to focus on ease of use and a desktop environment (GUI). I'll probably start with a graphical installer, something that even *nix noobs wouldn't have too much trouble using. From there I'll go into a suitable X11 Window Manager that will be fairly easy to get use to from a Windows user standpoint.

My clients are all Windows users who are afraid of even upgrading to Window 7, they're all still using XP. But they're also having horrible virus/trojan problems as well, starting with that Antivirus 2010 trojan that's floating around. So I will have to also focus on getting a good software base that will allow them to get their work done, which would be where Openoffice will probably come in.

So the reason I want to go with my own distro/fork/OS is to protect the work I'll be doing to make things easier for the end user, and to have a greater amount of control over the project as a whole. If I give them some choice, and I'm their to help and support them, and they know I have control over the new system, they'll feel comfortable with finally upgrading.

I know I could just make my own install CD and charge for the install and support. But if for some reason things take off and it becomes popular, then I've got the licensing in place to sell it online as well.

Currently I'm still thinking things through, so if any of the above seems contradictory, or just plain stupid, then sorry. :stud


----------



## J65nko (Mar 15, 2010)

IMHO your idea for for your copyright notice is OK. You can create a closed source system based on a BSD license.

See http://readlist.com/lists/openbsd.org/misc/15/79290.html for Theo de Raadt's explanation of copyright law versus contract law as used in the ISC and other open source licences.


----------



## PseudoCylon (Mar 18, 2010)

aladdin said:
			
		

> Basically I'm going to focus on ease of use and a desktop environment (GUI). I'll probably start with a graphical installer, something that even *nix noobs wouldn't have too much trouble using. From there I'll go into a suitable X11 Window Manager that will be fairly easy to get use to from a Windows user standpoint.



I think X is released under MIT license. And a desktop environment, say KDE (not bad choice for your clients), is released under GPL, but can be used with proprietary software if you comply with Qt license (or whatever they call it).

Lots of reading for a lawyer.


----------



## gpatrick (Mar 18, 2010)

PCBSD doesn't meet your needs?


----------



## Zare (Mar 18, 2010)

Again, you don't need to lockdown whole system.

Let's examine what you want to accomplish; you'll be using opensource programs to create some sort of desktop operating system. You want to protect your developing time, because all those components need to be put together, configured, tested, etc, to meet your custom demands. That's fair. However, at the end, you can make a proprietary installation script.

For instance, make a simple installer script that will wipe out whole primary drive, create BSD slice / partition layout, install base system, and configure network in DHCP client mode without user intervention. You don't need a lot of time to develop and test that kind of script. Use FreeBSD installation CD and replace sysinstall with your thingie. That can be free for copying/redistribution. Make another CD, that will include your proprietary scripts that will pull X.Org / KDE / OpenOffice / whatever, detect hardware, install everything, configure everything, etc. That CD contains your licenced work, and you can implement proprietary licence there.

When your custom FreeBSD installer ends, prompt the user to insert second, proprietary CD, and voila.

If you don't have problems with scripts, the user will, with one intervention only, have your customised desktop BSD installed. You haven't changed any system code, any licence, still you have your proprietary part protected by law.


----------



## Zare (Mar 18, 2010)

Like PseudoCyclon said earlier, you can't use GPLed components. That's pretty tricky, since BSD has some GPL code in it's base system. Everything else, like desktop manager, productivity software, etc, should be BSD/LGPL/MIT/something alike or else you can't do it.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 19, 2010)

Zare said:
			
		

> Like PseudoCyclon said earlier, you can't use GPLed components. That's pretty tricky, since BSD has some GPL code in it's base system. Everything else, like desktop manager, productivity software, etc, should be BSD/LGPL/MIT/something alike or else you can't do it.



You can use the GPL'ed stuff, but you must 
include the source code and
license any derivative works under the GPL*
  You most certainly will need a lawyer's help to find a useful definition of "derivative work", but I think that a program merely compiled under gcc is safe from the GPL (*maybe* if it requires some unique functionality of gcc) and I'm fairly certain a script that calls gnu make, gnu bash, _et cetera_ is safe from the GPL.


*without grubbing through thousands of words of a "simple license that protects my freedom" (and, oh, thanks, Stallman.  I owe you one [punch to some to-be-named portion of your hideous anatomy]), this might only apply to the GPLv3.


----------



## gcooper@ (Mar 21, 2010)

Zare said:
			
		

> Like PseudoCyclon said earlier, you can't use GPLed components. That's pretty tricky, since BSD has some GPL code in it's base system. Everything else, like desktop manager, productivity software, etc, should be BSD/LGPL/MIT/something alike or else you can't do it.



Wrong. A lot of FOSS is GPL, not LGPL. Philosophically, releasing things is fine as long as they're untouched for the most part in GPL-land, but they want to make sure software modifications are free.

So yeah, better be ready to pony up for lawyers fees.

Or you could be like a lot of folks and distribute the software for free (minus media fees) and CHARGE for support... ? Lord knows several large companies in my area are making a small profit off the sale of a given device, but are making a killing off support and maintenance.


----------



## gnufreex (Mar 22, 2010)

There is no need to remove GPL parts. You just cant lock down those. 

So basically, check licences of every package, decide which ones you want to lock down, and make sure that GPL packages are not one of them. Then, you need to publish source code of components you did not locked down. Piece of cake. You even don't need a lawyer. 

Off topic, I think that making proprietary versions is not a good idea. You will make mess for yourself, it will be costly to maintain and develop and profit is very questionable. You can make better profit from value add and support IMO.


----------

