# Different between BSD license and Linux license in one line



## mfaridi (Dec 20, 2009)

I want start understanding different between  BSD license and Linux license 
please tell us different only in one line


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 20, 2009)

you can make BSD licensed software commercial product.  You can't that with GPL


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 20, 2009)

Killasmurf86 pretty much nailed it. I found a similar statement on the net under "The best GNU GPL vs BSD comparison ever":


> If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want to share your software, use the GPL.


Wikipedia has a good "Permissive versus Copyleft opinions" section.

Some other ideas are that you pay for GPL software by promising to give back what you add to it. Also, a very important point about BSD is that it promotes the use of open standards by allowing people to use it in commercial products. I believe TCP/IP is an example of this. My own one line understanding is that *GPL protects software, BSD protects authors.*


----------



## oliverh (Dec 20, 2009)

BSDL is freedom without any borders, GPL is freedom in a golden cage.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 20, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> you can make BSD licensed software commercial product.  You can't that with GPL



You can with the GPL (look at several netgear products). The difference is that any _derived_ product of GPL'ed software needs to be open source and available. This isn't the case with the BSD license.


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 20, 2009)

SirDice said:
			
		

> You can with the GPL (look at several netgear products). The difference is that any _derived_ product of GPL'ed software needs to be open source and available. This isn't the case with the BSD license.



Ok, I'll have to correct my statement:
*With BSD license you can create closed source commercial products. You can't with GPL*


----------



## sixtydoses (Dec 20, 2009)

BSD v. GPL, Jason Dixon, NYCBSDCon 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMmbjJI5su0


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 20, 2009)

See related discussions on this forum:
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=7605
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=6769
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=1776


----------



## vigol (Dec 25, 2009)

If you... have time to spare... gain money out of programming... or working for another person,,,, still if your persist on using GPL, I recommend you : migrating to MsDotNet.


----------



## vaclinux (Dec 25, 2009)

in one line ? 
Because BSD License is not GPL.


----------



## Purple_Q (Dec 25, 2009)

I have crazy respect for GPL softwares though. To me, it's one of the few decent charitable acts people engage in. I use the word charitable because all of the people who contribute to a GPL software, which larger ones obviously have contributors from all around the world, know they are doing it for free and sharing it completely (they cannot close the source or aim for making that almighty dollar). Either that, or they create the software for fun.

It seems to me that if neither case is your mindset, you use a BSD license.

The only thing that irks me so much is if someone writes software that they simply want to give out for free, not expecting a dime, and then someone else finding it so functional that they would want to take part or all of it and incorporate it into their commercial software. Using another person and their non-commercial minded work for your profit, seems dirty.
  --Q


----------



## oliverh (Dec 25, 2009)

>Using another person and their non-commercial minded work for your profit, seems dirty.

No it's just _real_ freedom. And last not least I don't know any company, which doesn't contribute back something, like money, servers, code etc.

>they cannot close the source or aim for making that almighty dollar

Two big errors in reasoning:

1.) nobody can close the source, the author only can do so.
2.) everybody can sell GPL software

Surely, you can take BSDL software, do some in-house development and hide it, but that's the only thing you can actually do. If you're using GPL software you have to show the changed code too.

Do you know Apple, Juniper Networks, Yahoo, Nokia, Netapp, Swisscom, Google, Cisco and so on? All of them contribute something to FreeBSD, they don't have to, but they just do it.


----------



## CodeBlock (Dec 25, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> Surely, you can take BSDL software, do some in-house development and hide it, but that's the only thing you can actually do. If you're using GPL software you have to show the changed code too.



Inaccurate. The GPL only applies if you release the changes at all. If it's in-house and you never release it, that is fair and legal. However if you ever decide to release it, you must do so as GPL.

That said, I release all my stuff as BSDL, because I just don't like copylefts. I use GPL software (GNU screen, because I can't grasp onto tmux), weechat, etc., but for my own software I release it as BSDL.


----------



## crsd (Dec 25, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want to share your software, use the GPL.



Damn FUD.


----------



## Alt (Dec 25, 2009)

mfaridi said:
			
		

> I want start understanding different between  BSD license and Linux license
> please tell us different only in one line


GPL: Software is free to spread. BSD: You are free to use.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 25, 2009)

crsd said:
			
		

> Damn FUD.


How am I supposed to learn anything from that????? I would be grateful if you would explain a little more succinctly.


----------



## crsd (Dec 25, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> How am I supposed to learn anything from that????? I would be grateful if you would explain a little more succinctly.



It's just my opinion  I don't know what GPL "protects", but saying that you "give away your software for free" with BSD is just wrong, IMHO. I like Alt's post - you are free to use BSD licensed software as you wish, as long as you give credit to original authors.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 25, 2009)

CodeBlock said:
			
		

> Inaccurate. The GPL only applies if you release the changes at all. If it's in-house and you never release it, that is fair and legal. However if you ever decide to release it, you must do so as GPL.
> 
> That said, I release all my stuff as BSDL, because I just don't like copylefts. I use GPL software (GNU screen, because I can't grasp onto tmux), weechat, etc., but for my own software I release it as BSDL.



Well it's not inaccurate in the mentioned context above, with "in-house" I meant "in-house development", that leads to some release (firmware for some device etc.) not mere "in-house use" for some arcane areas of work ;-)


----------



## robbak (Dec 26, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> >they cannot close the source or aim for making that almighty dollar
> 
> Two big errors in reasoning:
> 
> ...


Not even the Author. Once the source code has been released under a licence that lacks a revocation clause (like BSD), the code is out there, and cannot be closed by anyone.


----------



## oliverh (Dec 26, 2009)

robbak said:
			
		

> Not even the Author. Once the source code has been released under a licence that lacks a revocation clause (like BSD), the code is out there, and cannot be closed by anyone.



Sure he can close it. He cannot revoke it, but any further development won't be open. If I change the license for my application, then you aren't able to use any _new_ development just the _last_ open version.

Have a look at cdrecord, JÃ¶rg Schilling changed the license to CDDL and so Debian people aren't able anymore to use the code, so they have to keep their crappy fork wodim without the latest developments.


----------

