BSD and OSD

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

I may not quite understand your question, but I think you are correct that
some software under the BSD license may not be open source. This potential,
however, does not mean the BSD license, itself, is not an open source
license.

It is also important to remember that adding restrictions to redistribution
is distinct from selling the software (which is also distinct from the
copyright holder collecting royalties from third parties).

First, charging a fee (selling) for software is fine in open source and free
software. As you know, "Free" means free(dom) from the (real or perceived)
limitations of copyright, (free speech not "free beer.") As long as the user
may freely copy and modify the source code, the price of the software does
not necessarily affect whther the software is open source. Although the BSD
license does not contain a copyleft provision, that would not mean is not
properly viewed as open source. The issue is whether the restrictions
permitted by the license take the software out of the open source movement.
Since the BSD license does not contain a copyleft, it permits code-forking.
Consequently, some of those forks could lead to non-free/closed source
software.

Rod


___________________________________
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Yip [mailto:weng at yours.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 2:23 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: BSD and OSD
>
>
> I am having problems reconciling the BSD with the Open Source Definition
> (OSD).
>
> s.1 OSD requires 'free REdistribution'.
>
> "The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> software as a component of an aggregate softrware distribution containing
> program from several sources. The license may not require a royalty or
> other fee for such sale"
>
> I understand this to mean that the copyright holder can charge money for
> the initial first license, but cannot do so for subsequent redistribution
> made by his recipient.
>
> But the BSD enables a licensee to ADD restrictions to redistribution,
> INCLUDING a requirement of payment, does it not?
>
> How then is the BSD an Open Source license?
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>