KDBUS & Systemd Now Yields A Working System

[brosis]

Sorry, GPL isn't any safer then any other license. One would have to be delusional to think that because something is licensed one way that it isn't being used in what would be considered an illegal manner according to its terms. I guarantee you there is a ton of GPL code being used in a manner that violates its license and more then likely obfuscated in a way that proving that it was being used would be extremely difficult.

These are of same legality, as pirates they are fighting with. In this sense they pirate themself, and binaries pirates steal from pirates back into public domain. But legally, GPL does protect - a matter of legal action, the ground is laid out and the backing up organization is present.

What they can do, and why they don't do is - to take code, read it and chinese-wall it into proprietary. Neither GPL, nor (obviously) BSD prevent it.
Patents may prevent it, but GPL issues a patent grant. Regarding BSD, I am not sure (below this post) - its seems double edged. One edge will hurt anarchy, other(wise) - proprietary. But why the proprietary still dislike GPL, is because they can't feed continuously, by just merging own changes. GPL means high cost to them (with own development being of highest cost ofc).

Sorry dude but that is simply wrong. As a permissive license it does not need the lengthy definition clauses. I have as well talked to a copyright lawyer and it is binding and it is just as legal as any other license.

If it is true that you say, then it is legal in US. But real court cases would really help, would be really interesting to clear this case. I have information that BSD license is not suited for any serious project with legal weight.
But outside of US, in Russia for example, BSD is not legal. Rearrangements similar to this one are required, with "original BSD" playing a sublicense (invalidated) role here - this license requires payment however.
GPL had had hard time to define its legality due to requirement of owner, licensee, etc, but it worked out.

Ptex is a texture mapping system developed by Walt Disney Animation Studios for production-quality rendering.
License: BSD

Alembic is .... initially developed in 2010 by teams from Sony Pictures Imageworks and Industrial Light & Magic, and development continues today.
License: BSD

OpenColorIO (OCIO) is .... of production experience earned on such films as SpiderMan 2 (2004), Surf’s Up (2007), Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009), Alice in Wonderland (2010), and many more. OpenColorIO is natively supported in commercial applications like Katana, Mari, Silhouette FX, and others coming soon.
License: BSD

Field3D is.... Developed by Sony Pictures.
License: BSD

I could go on ....

OpenEXR is .... Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone, Men in Black II, Gangs of New York, and Signs. Since then, OpenEXR has become ILM's main image file format.
License: BSD

OpenImageIO started as ImageIO - an API that was part of Gelato, the renderer software developed by nVidia. Work on ImageIO started in 2002. In the same year specification of the API and its header files were released under BSD license.

I found something interesting - namely BSD lacks any patent grant.
So while source to interface of certain instance may be provided, no right to actually use the approach is granted.
In the meaning, that the licensed code represents an implementation, but no right to use the implementation (or any other modification of it ) is given.
ClearBSD license even explicitly states that.

For example, anyone using the formats, frameworks and libraries above are under threat of patent attack from their developers(more precisely - copyright owners).

When Google has licensed WebM, it initally published it under new license that combined both rights, but because it become rather incompatible with GPL3, - and adpoting (L)GPL3 would cause non-FLOSS guys to yell even louder, they gave a patent grant and a separate BSD license for the implementation. Thus it confirms that any of above or otherwise BSD libraries are very dangerous to use even within BSD-compatible models.

Apache and (of course) GPL3 though have patent grants this or other way (beside legally valid form).

Does it now mean, your whole project is legally valid to copy on BSD terms, but completely prohibited to actually use in any way, hm?

[zester]

I found something interesting - namely BSD lacks any patent grant.
So while source to interface of certain instance may be provided, no right to actually use the approach is granted.
In the meaning, that the licensed code represents an implementation, but no right to use the implementation (or any other modification of it ) is given.
ClearBSD license even explicitly states that.

For example, anyone using the formats, frameworks and libraries above are under threat of patent attack from their developers(more precisely - copyright owners).

When Google has licensed WebM, it initally published it under new license that combined both rights, but because it become rather incompatible with GPL3, - and adpoting (L)GPL3 would cause non-FLOSS guys to yell even louder, they gave a patent grant and a separate BSD license for the implementation. Thus it confirms that any of above or otherwise BSD libraries are very dangerous to use even within BSD-compatible models.

Apache and (of course) GPL3 though have patent grants this or other way (beside legally valid form).

Does it now mean, your whole project is legally valid to copy on BSD terms, but completely prohibited to actually use in any way, hm?

Your always under threat of a patent attack regardless of what License you use. A smart developer will contribute code without attribution, because you can't sue
someone for infringing code unless you know who your suing. Most software patents are trivial, I think you would be hard pressed to find a develop that didn't violate someones IP on accident at one time or another.

[zester]

Someone from this topics linked back to here from the kdbus page.

https://github.com/gregkh/kdbus/issues/8#issuecomment-31320305

I asked ...

Will kdbus be optional I can't have this running in the kernel on our systems.

[zester]

Greg says ...

If you don't want to use kdbus, don't, no one is forcing you to at all. If/when it gets merged into the kernel tree, just disable it and you will be fine. Unless you rely on systemd, then you might wish to take a look at it and why it is being created (hint, see the linux.conf.au talk on it next month for all the details.)

So kdbus will be optional.

[zester]

Thomas Andersen (phomes) criticized me and yet his only contributions have been (kdbus.txt: typo fixes and Update nouveau wiki link). And he has
no projects on github of his own.

[silix]

I found something interesting - namely BSD lacks any patent grant.

precisely (as does gpl v2 btw ). which is obvious if you consider that patents (as long as they are valid and enforced) apply cover the workings and semantics of a sw system as invented, while code only makes up the form in which such mechanism and its working is concretely delivered - so if i obtain / license source code to reuse in my solution i may skimp on the implementation effort, but if such code implements patented algorithms i'm not exempt from paying royalties for them...

So while source to interface of certain instance may be provided, no right to actually use the approach is granted.
In the meaning, that the licensed code represents an implementation, but no right to use the implementation (or any other modification of it ) is given.
ClearBSD license even explicitly states that.

which is again quite obvious and logical if you enter the mindset that bsd as a license seems more intended to spread code and industrial standards rather than promote an ideology...

[zester]

precisely (as does gpl v2 btw ). which is obvious if you consider that patents (as long as they are valid and enforced) apply cover the workings and semantics of a sw system as invented, while code only makes up the form in which such mechanism and its working is concretely delivered - so if i obtain / license source code to reuse in my solution i may skimp on the implementation effort, but if such code implements patented algorithms i'm not exempt from paying royalties for them...
which is again quite obvious and logical if you enter the mindset that bsd as a license seems more intended to spread code and industrial standards rather than promote an ideology...

Some patent grants in licenses also only apply, if the implementation is compliant to the specification, meaning if you deviate from the spec you loose the protection of the
patent rights granted for the whole implementation.

[bkor]

Neather kdbus or systemd is relevant or useful to Android. Without dalvik working on your a typical Linux Desktop everything else is pointless. I have a better chance of getting code adopted by google.

As said, you're wrong. I gave a reference pointing that out. I talked about kdbus though. Suggest also working on your English because you make so many mistakes your posts become almost unreadable.

Just repeating your errors doesn't make them true :P

[Teho]

Thomas Andersen (phomes) criticized me and yet his only contributions have been (kdbus.txt: typo fixes and Update nouveau wiki link). And he has
no projects on github of his own.

Seriously... what? According to Ohloh.net he has contributed 1435 commits to 35 projects over the last seven years and that obviously doesn't list all. I have yet to see proof that you have done any notable contributions to ANY project ever.

[zester]

Seriously... what? According to Ohloh.net he has contributed 1435 commits to 35 projects over the last seven years and that obviously doesn't list all. I have yet to see proof that you have done any notable contributions to ANY project ever.

Looks like mostly typo fixes, for "gnome-games" and "systemd" and he's a filthy gnome developer, probably a Microsoft lover during
the Gnome Dark Ages. He should kill him self, for even being associated with Gnome.