OSDev.org

For GNU:
------------------

It is clearly stated that one cannot take the actual sources or the whole program and claim it is ours. But, is it allowed to extract the operation logic and reimplement it in code of ours, completely, or at least partially and mix it with our own design ideas and then claim it's a product of us since all we did was to learn the existent concepts and reimplement them as it better suits us?

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------


For BSD:
--------------------

I understand that BSD is almost like Public Domain.
Now If That Is Correct:

Can the sources of FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc., be used by us, or at least reimplement their concepts with our code but the same ideas, complete or partial, and complete them with our own thinking in source code we have built ourselves and that just borrows ideas from those sources licensed like that?



----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------


Or if these questions have lost the point (which I don't think that much), until which point can one use those sources at our advantage? I don't see anything bad, for example, to borrow information from drivers sources to build ours because all we are doing is using the information contained therein, and by no means are we reutilizing existent code ("Reutilizing" understood as a copy-paste of the actual sources).

Technically you could take any BSD licenced source code call it BOB and sell it without sharing the source code..

As long as you follow the licence clauses..

NetBSD still uses an older 4 clause BSD licence.. It's that older advertising clause that some people don't like.. 3 clause or 2 clause projects are great though..

(That sneaky 4th clause..) Another neat thing is the text of the BSD licence is public domain so you're allowed to add/remove any clauses you want..
(Not on someone else's BSD licenced work though..)

But yes, BSD is almost like Public domain..
You can keep your "fork" closed source if you want...
But for source releases the original licence must be left intact though.
If it's a binary-only project the licence text should be included in documentation etc..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licence

It makes me think that I can freely use the engineering methods used there whenever I remake my sources 100% and whenever it doesn't break any privative patents, which anyway aren't very common in open source project.

If that's so, then it looks perfect to me to, say, examine the algorithms used for open source multimedia applications and reimplement them with 100% source code written by me and the algorithms further trimmed/completed/mixed with my own design needs.

I don't have any interest on dumb copy-paste existent source code but to understand and reimplement the computing engineering work and improve it or make it go to more or less different logical paths, so it cannot be considered to be a dirty copy or infringement of any licensing, and I'm sure that there are many other people hoping of being able to do so.

In short, then it looks like the situation is as follows:


Read Open Source, Borrow, Reimplement and Modify Concepts, 100% Source Rewrite == Becomes Ours

Dirty Copy-Paste of Existing Source Code == Not Allowed

Might be for BSD. Not so for sure for GPL. The more fundamental GPL evangelists claim that if you learned something from GPL'ed code, any work on the field are "derived works"...

Solar wrote:Might be for BSD. Not so for sure for GPL. The more fundamental GPL evangelists claim that if you learned something from GPL'ed code, any work on the field are "derived works"...

So if I look at somebody and then go on to create a child, I have to pay royalties?

That's bollocks.

You too, young padawan, will learn not to look for common sense in law, politics, or information technology.

Solar wrote:You too, young padawan, will learn not to look for common sense in law, politics, or information technology.

I resent the style of your comment since both not replying on it and replying on it reflect badly on me whatever I answer, your reply effectively silencing any possible answer impeding proper discussion.

I wasn't looking for logic in law or politics. I was implying a non-connection between law/politics and the fanatics that believe the GPL would be upheld as such.

Candy wrote:I resent the style of your comment since both not replying on it and replying on it reflect badly on me whatever I answer...

It was meant as a joke, not a rethorical trick, which I hoped I made clear with the smiley.

Solar wrote:

Candy wrote:I resent the style of your comment since both not replying on it and replying on it reflect badly on me whatever I answer...

It was meant as a joke, not a rethorical trick, which I hoped I made clear with the smiley.

Wow, First he didn't understand the Apple "phreak" reference in another topic.. and now he didn't get a Star Wars inspired joke?

Candy, Do you live under a rock?

j/k

(BTW pal, It's rhetorical..)

Candy is right in some sense: that was a bit of discussion killer
Solar is also right in some sense: you could have played along (ignored the joke, or laugh about it) and go on as if nothing happened.

Candy, Do you live under a rock?

No. He lives on a rock. The third one from the sun to be precise

Now, make peace, not war, and live happily ever after, etc, etc, etc

Sorry for the "discussion killer". The padawan reference is an ongoing joke between DevL and myself (which we found hysterically funny at some point), and I thought nothing of "aiming" it at Candy here. I didn't even realize one could receive it so poorly.

Solar wrote:Sorry for the "discussion killer". The padawan reference is an ongoing joke between DevL and myself (which we found hysterically funny at some point), and I thought nothing of "aiming" it at Candy here. I didn't even realize one could receive it so poorly.

Wasn't intended to be that harsh but it is a conversation killer. Especially when you react on a controversial statement.

Anyway, I also managed to kill the discussion without it so never mind