#, fuzzy msgid "" msgstr "" "Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n" "POT-Creation-Date: 2019-03-17 16:31-0300\n" "MIME-Version: 1.0\n" "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n" "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n" #. Put one translator per line, in the form NAME , YEAR1, YEAR2 msgctxt "_" msgid "translator-credits" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: info/title #: article.translate.xml:5 msgid "Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source Project" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: affiliation/address #: article.translate.xml:9 #, no-wrap msgid "brucem@alumni.cse.ucsc.edu\n" " " msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: authorgroup/author #: article.translate.xml:8 msgid "" "BruceMontague <_:address-1/> " msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: legalnotice/para #: article.translate.xml:15 msgid "FreeBSD is a registered trademark of the FreeBSD Foundation." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: legalnotice/para #: article.translate.xml:17 msgid "" "Intel, Celeron, Centrino, Core, EtherExpress, i386, i486, Itanium, Pentium, " "and Xeon are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its " "subsidiaries in the United States and other countries." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: legalnotice/para #: article.translate.xml:21 msgid "" "Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish " "their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in " "this document, and the FreeBSD Project was aware of the trademark claim, the " "designations have been followed by the ™ or the ® symbol." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: info/pubdate #. (itstool) path: info/releaseinfo #: article.translate.xml:29 article.translate.xml:31 msgid "$FreeBSD$" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:35 msgid "Introduction" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:37 msgid "" "This document makes a case for using a BSD style license for software and " "data; specifically it recommends using a BSD style license in place of the " "GPL. It can also be read as a BSD versus GPL Open Source License " "introduction and summary." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:44 msgid "Very Brief Open Source History" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:46 msgid "" "Long before the term Open Source was used, software was " "developed by loose associations of programmers and freely exchanged. " "Starting in the early 1950's, organizations such as SHARE and DECUS developed much of the software that computer hardware " "companies bundled with their hardware offerings. At that time computer " "companies were in the hardware business; anything that reduced software cost " "and made more programs available made the hardware companies more " "competitive." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:56 msgid "" "This model changed in the 1960's. In 1965 ADR developed the first licensed " "software product independent of a hardware company. ADR was competing " "against a free IBM package originally developed by IBM customers. ADR " "patented their software in 1968. To stop sharing of their program, they " "provided it under an equipment lease in which payment was spread over the " "lifetime of the product. ADR thus retained ownership and could control " "resale and reuse." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:65 msgid "" "In 1969 the US Department of Justice charged IBM with destroying businesses " "by bundling free software with IBM hardware. As a result of this suit, IBM " "unbundled its software; that is, software became independent products " "separate from hardware." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:71 msgid "" "In 1968 Informatics introduced the first commercial killer-app and rapidly " "established the concept of the software product, the software company, and " "very high rates of return. Informatics developed the perpetual license which " "is now standard throughout the computer industry, wherein ownership is never " "transferred to the customer." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:80 msgid "Unix from a BSD Licensing Perspective" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:82 msgid "" "AT&T, who owned the original Unix implementation, was a publicly " "regulated monopoly tied up in anti-trust court; it was legally unable to " "sell a product into the software market. It was, however, able to provide it " "to academic institutions for the price of media." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:88 msgid "" "Universities rapidly adopted Unix after an OS conference publicized its " "availability. It was extremely helpful that Unix ran on the PDP-11, a very " "affordable 16-bit computer, and was coded in a high-level language that was " "demonstrably good for systems programming. The DEC PDP-11 had, in effect, an " "open hardware interface designed to make it easy for customers to write " "their own OS, which was common. As DEC founder Ken Olsen famously " "proclaimed, software comes from heaven when you have good hardware." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:98 msgid "" "Unix author Ken Thompson returned to his alma mater, University of " "California Berkeley (UCB), in 1975 and taught the kernel line-by-line. This " "ultimately resulted in an evolving system known as BSD (Berkeley Standard " "Distribution). UCB converted Unix to 32-bits, added virtual memory, and " "implemented the version of the TCP/IP stack upon which the Internet was " "essentially built. UCB made BSD available for the cost of media, under what " "became known as the BSD license. A customer purchased Unix " "from AT&T and then ordered a BSD tape from UCB." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:108 msgid "" "In the mid-1980s a government anti-trust case against ATT ended with the " "break-up of ATT. ATT still owned Unix and was now able to sell it. ATT " "embarked on an aggressive licensing effort and most commercial Unixes of the " "day became ATT-derived." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:113 msgid "" "In the early 1990's ATT sued UCB over license violations related to BSD. UCB " "discovered that ATT had incorporated, without acknowledgment or payment, " "many improvements due to BSD into ATT's products, and a lengthy court case, " "primarily between ATT and UCB, ensued. During this period some UCB " "programmers embarked on a project to rewrite any ATT code associated with " "BSD. This project resulted in a system called BSD 4.4-lite (lite because it " "was not a complete system; it lacked 6 key ATT files)." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:122 msgid "" "A lengthy series of articles published slightly later in Dr. Dobbs magazine " "described a BSD-derived 386 PC version of Unix, with BSD-licensed " "replacement files for the 6 missing 4.4 lite files. This system, named " "386BSD, was due to ex-UCB programmer William Jolitz. It became the original " "basis of all the PC BSDs in use today." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:129 msgid "" "In the mid 1990s, Novell purchased ATT's Unix rights and a (then secret) " "agreement was reached to terminate the lawsuit. UCB soon terminated its " "support for BSD." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:135 msgid "The Current State of FreeBSD and BSD Licenses" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:137 msgid "" "The so-called new BSD license applied to FreeBSD within the last few " "years is effectively a statement that you can do anything with the program " "or its source, but you do not have any warranty and none of the authors has " "any liability (basically, you cannot sue anybody). This new BSD license is " "intended to encourage product commercialization. Any BSD code can be sold or " "included in proprietary products without any restrictions on the " "availability of your code or your future behavior." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:147 msgid "" "Do not confuse the new BSD license with public domain. While " "an item in the public domain is also free for all to use, it has no owner." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:154 msgid "The origins of the GPL" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:156 msgid "" "While the future of Unix had been so muddled in the late 1980s and early " "1990s, the GPL, another development with important licensing considerations, " "reached fruition." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:160 msgid "" "Richard Stallman, the developer of Emacs, was a member of the staff at MIT " "when his lab switched from home-grown to proprietary systems. Stallman " "became upset when he found that he could not legally add minor improvements " "to the system. (Many of Stallman's co-workers had left to form two companies " "based on software developed at MIT and licensed by MIT; there appears to " "have been disagreement over access to the source code for this software). " "Stallman devised an alternative to the commercial software license and " "called it the GPL, or \"GNU Public License\". He also started a non-profit " "foundation, the Free Software " "Foundation (FSF), which intended to develop an entire operating " "system, including all associated software, that would not be subject to " "proprietary licensing. This system was called GNU, for \"GNU is Not Unix\"." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:175 msgid "" "The GPL was designed to be the antithesis of the standard proprietary " "license. To this end, any modifications that were made to a GPL program were " "required to be given back to the GPL community (by requiring that the source " "of the program be available to the user) and any program that used or linked " "to GPL code was required to be under the GPL. The GPL was intended to keep " "software from becoming proprietary. As the last paragraph of the GPL states:" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:184 msgid "" "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your " "program into proprietary programs.[1]" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:188 msgid "" "The GPL is a complex license so here are some rules of thumb when " "using the GPL:" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:194 msgid "" "you can charge as much as you want for distributing, supporting, or " "documenting the software, but you cannot sell the software itself." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:198 msgid "" "the rule-of-thumb states that if GPL source is required for a program to " "compile, the program must be under the GPL. Linking statically to a GPL " "library requires a program to be under the GPL." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:203 msgid "" "the GPL requires that any patents associated with GPLed software must be " "licensed for everyone's free use." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:207 msgid "" "simply aggregating software together, as when multiple programs are put on " "one disk, does not count as including GPLed programs in non-GPLed programs." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:212 msgid "" "output of a program does not count as a derivative work. This enables the " "gcc compiler to be used in commercial environments without legal problems." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:216 msgid "" "since the Linux kernel is under the GPL, any code statically linked with the " "Linux kernel must be GPLed. This requirement can be circumvented by " "dynamically linking loadable kernel modules. This permits companies to " "distribute binary drivers, but often has the disadvantage that they will " "only work for particular versions of the Linux kernel." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:224 msgid "" "Due in part to its complexity, in many parts of the world today the " "legalities of the GPL are being ignored in regard to Linux and related " "software. The long-term ramifications of this are unclear." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:232 msgid "The origins of Linux and the LGPL" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:234 msgid "" "While the commercial Unix wars raged, the Linux kernel was developed as a PC " "Unix clone. Linus Torvalds credits the existence of the GNU C compiler and " "the associated GNU tools for the existence of Linux. He put the Linux kernel " "under the GPL." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:239 msgid "" "Remember that the GPL requires anything that statically links to any code " "under the GPL also be placed under the GPL. The source for this code must " "thus be made available to the user of the program. Dynamic linking, however, " "is not considered a violation of the GPL. Pressure to put proprietary " "applications on Linux became overwhelming. Such applications often must link " "with system libraries. This resulted in a modified version of the GPL called " "the LGPL (\"Library\", since renamed to \"Lesser\", GPL). The LGPL " "allows proprietary code to be linked to the GNU C library, glibc. You do not " "have to release the source to code which has been dynamically linked to an " "LGPLed library." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:252 msgid "" "If you statically link an application with glibc, such as is often required " "in embedded systems, you cannot keep your application proprietary, that is, " "the source must be released. Both the GPL and LGPL require any modifications " "to the code directly under the license to be released." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:261 msgid "Open Source licenses and the Orphaning Problem" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:263 msgid "" "One of the serious problems associated with proprietary software is known as " "orphaning. This occurs when a single business failure or " "change in a product strategy causes a huge pyramid of dependent systems and " "companies to fail for reasons beyond their control. Decades of experience " "have shown that the momentary size or success of a software supplier is no " "guarantee that their software will remain available, as current market " "conditions and strategies can change rapidly." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:272 msgid "" "The GPL attempts to prevent orphaning by severing the link to proprietary " "intellectual property." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:275 msgid "" "A BSD license gives a small company the equivalent of software-in-escrow " "without any legal complications or costs. If a BSD-licensed program becomes " "orphaned, a company can simply take over, in a proprietary manner, the " "program on which they are dependent. An even better situation occurs when a " "BSD code-base is maintained by a small informal consortium, since the " "development process is not dependent on the survival of a single company or " "product line. The survivability of the development team when they are " "mentally in the zone is much more important than simple physical " "availability of the source code." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:289 msgid "What a license cannot do" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:291 msgid "" "No license can guarantee future software availability. Although a copyright " "holder can traditionally change the terms of a copyright at anytime, the " "presumption in the BSD community is that such an attempt simply causes the " "source to fork." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:297 msgid "" "The GPL explicitly disallows revoking the license. It has occurred, however, " "that a company (Mattel) purchased a GPL copyright (cphack), revoked the " "entire copyright, went to court, and prevailed [2]. That is, they legally " "revoked the entire distribution and all derivative works based on the " "copyright. Whether this could happen with a larger and more dispersed " "distribution is an open question; there is also some confusion regarding " "whether the software was really under the GPL." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:307 msgid "" "In another example, Red Hat purchased Cygnus, an engineering company that " "had taken over development of the FSF compiler tools. Cygnus was able to do " "so because they had developed a business model in which they sold support " "for GNU software. This enabled them to employ some 50 engineers and drive " "the direction of the programs by contributing the preponderance of " "modifications. As Donald Rosenberg states \"projects using licenses like the " "GPL...live under constant threat of having someone take over the project by " "producing a better version of the code and doing it faster than the original " "owners.\" [3]" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:321 msgid "GPL Advantages and Disadvantages" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:323 msgid "" "A common reason to use the GPL is when modifying or extending the gcc " "compiler. This is particularly apt when working with one-off specialty CPUs " "in environments where all software costs are likely to be considered " "overhead, with minimal expectations that others will use the resulting " "compiler." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:329 msgid "" "The GPL is also attractive to small companies selling CDs in an environment " "where \"buy-low, sell-high\" may still give the end-user a very inexpensive " "product. It is also attractive to companies that expect to survive by " "providing various forms of technical support, including documentation, for " "the GPLed intellectual property world." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:336 msgid "" "A less publicized and unintended use of the GPL is that it is very favorable " "to large companies that want to undercut software companies. In other words, " "the GPL is well suited for use as a marketing weapon, potentially reducing " "overall economic benefit and contributing to monopolistic behavior." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:342 msgid "" "The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and " "profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate " "student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his " "research results, or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company " "on the assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:349 msgid "" "For those who must work with statically-linked implementations of multiple " "software standards, the GPL is often a poor license, because it precludes " "using proprietary implementations of the standards. The GPL thus minimizes " "the number of programs that can be built using a GPLed standard. The GPL was " "intended to not provide a mechanism to develop a standard on which one " "engineers proprietary products. (This does not apply to Linux applications " "because they do not statically link, rather they use a trap-based API.)" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:359 msgid "" "The GPL attempts to make programmers contribute to an evolving suite of " "programs, then to compete in the distribution and support of this suite. " "This situation is unrealistic for many required core system standards, which " "may be applied in widely varying environments which require commercial " "customization or integration with legacy standards under existing (non-GPL) " "licenses. Real-time systems are often statically linked, so the GPL and LGPL " "are definitely considered potential problems by many embedded systems " "companies." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:369 msgid "" "The GPL is an attempt to keep efforts, regardless of demand, at the research " "and development stages. This maximizes the benefits to researchers and " "developers, at an unknown cost to those who would benefit from wider " "distribution." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:374 msgid "" "The GPL was designed to keep research results from transitioning to " "proprietary products. This step is often assumed to be the last step in the " "traditional technology transfer pipeline and it is usually difficult enough " "under the best of circumstances; the GPL was intended to make it impossible." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:383 msgid "BSD Advantages" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:385 msgid "" "A BSD style license is a good choice for long duration research or other " "projects that need a development environment that:" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:391 msgid "has near zero cost" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:392 msgid "will evolve over a long period of time" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:394 msgid "" "permits anyone to retain the option of commercializing final results with " "minimal legal issues." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:399 msgid "" "This final consideration may often be the dominant one, as it was when the " "Apache project decided upon its license:" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:402 msgid "" "This type of license is ideal for promoting the use of a reference " "body of code that implements a protocol for common service. This is another " "reason why we choose it for the Apache group - many of us wanted to see HTTP " "survive and become a true multiparty standard, and would not have minded in " "the slightest if Microsoft or Netscape choose to incorporate our HTTP engine " "or any other component of our code into their products, if it helped further " "the goal of keeping HTTP common... All this means that, strategically " "speaking, the project needs to maintain sufficient momentum, and that " "participants realize greater value by contributing their code to the " "project, even code that would have had value if kept proprietary." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:415 msgid "" "Developers tend to find the BSD license attractive as it keeps legal issues " "out of the way and lets them do whatever they want with the code. In " "contrast, those who expect primarily to use a system rather than program it, " "or expect others to evolve the code, or who do not expect to make a living " "from their work associated with the system (such as government employees), " "find the GPL attractive, because it forces code developed by others to be " "given to them and keeps their employer from retaining copyright and thus " "potentially \"burying\" or orphaning the software. If you want to force your " "competitors to help you, the GPL is attractive." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:427 msgid "" "A BSD license is not simply a gift. The question why should we help " "our competitors or let them steal our work? comes up often in " "relation to a BSD license. Under a BSD license, if one company came to " "dominate a product niche that others considered strategic, the other " "companies can, with minimal effort, form a mini-consortium aimed at " "reestablishing parity by contributing to a competitive BSD variant that " "increases market competition and fairness. This permits each company to " "believe that it will be able to profit from some advantage it can provide, " "while also contributing to economic flexibility and efficiency. The more " "rapidly and easily the cooperating members can do this, the more successful " "they will be. A BSD license is essentially a minimally complicated license " "that enables such behavior." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:442 msgid "" "A key effect of the GPL, making a complete and competitive Open Source " "system widely available at cost of media, is a reasonable goal. A BSD style " "license, in conjunction with ad-hoc-consortiums of individuals, can achieve " "this goal without destroying the economic assumptions built around the " "deployment-end of the technology transfer pipeline." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:452 msgid "Specific Recommendations for using a BSD license" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:456 msgid "" "The BSD license is preferable for transferring research results in a way " "that will widely be deployed and most benefit an economy. As such, research " "funding agencies, such as the NSF, ONR and DARPA, should encourage in the " "earliest phases of funded research projects, the adoption of BSD style " "licenses for software, data, results, and open hardware. They should also " "encourage formation of standards based around implemented Open Source " "systems and ongoing Open Source projects." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:466 msgid "" "Government policy should minimize the costs and difficulties in moving from " "research to deployment. When possible, grants should require results to be " "available under a commercialization friendly BSD style license." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:471 msgid "" "In many cases, the long-term results of a BSD style license more accurately " "reflect the goals proclaimed in the research charter of universities then " "what occurs when results are copyrighted or patented and subject to " "proprietary university licensing. Anecdotal evidence exists that " "universities are financially better rewarded in the long run by releasing " "research results and then appealing to donations from commercially " "successful alumni." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:480 msgid "" "Companies have long recognized that the creation of de facto standards is a " "key marketing technique. The BSD license serves this role well, if a company " "really has a unique advantage in evolving the system. The license is legally " "attractive to the widest audience while the company's expertise ensures " "their control. There are times when the GPL may be the appropriate vehicle " "for an attempt to create such a standard, especially when attempting to " "undermine or co-opt others. The GPL, however, penalizes the evolution of " "that standard, because it promotes a suite rather than a commercially " "applicable standard. Use of such a suite constantly raises commercialization " "and legal issues. It may not be possible to mix standards when some are " "under the GPL and others are not. A true technical standard should not " "mandate exclusion of other standards for non-technical reasons." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:496 msgid "" "Companies interested in promoting an evolving standard, which can become the " "core of other companies' commercial products, should be wary of the GPL. " "Regardless of the license used, the resulting software will usually devolve " "to whoever actually makes the majority of the engineering changes and most " "understands the state of the system. The GPL simply adds additional legal " "friction to the result." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:504 msgid "" "Large companies, in which Open Source code is developed, should be aware " "that programmers appreciate Open Source because it leaves the software " "available to the employee when they change employers. Some companies " "encourage this behavior as an employment perk, especially when the software " "involved is not directly strategic. It is, in effect, a front-loaded " "retirement benefit with potential lost opportunity costs but no direct costs." " Encouraging employees to work for peer acclaim outside the company is a " "cheap portable benefit a company can sometimes provide with near zero " "downside." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:515 msgid "" "Small companies with software projects vulnerable to orphaning should " "attempt to use the BSD license when possible. Companies of all sizes should " "consider forming such Open Source projects when it is to their mutual " "advantage to maintain the minimal legal and organization overheads " "associated with a true BSD-style Open Source project." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: listitem/para #: article.translate.xml:522 msgid "" "Non-profits should participate in Open Source projects when possible. To " "minimize software engineering problems, such as mixing code under different " "licenses, BSD-style licenses should be encouraged. Being leery of the GPL " "should particularly be the case with non-profits that interact with the " "developing world. In some locales where application of law becomes a costly " "exercise, the simplicity of the new BSD license, as compared to the GPL, may " "be of considerable advantage." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:537 msgid "Conclusion" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:539 msgid "" "In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary " "commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal " "restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source " "or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's " "needs change. In other words, the BSD license does not become a legal time-" "bomb at any point in the development process." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/para #: article.translate.xml:547 msgid "" "In addition, since the BSD license does not come with the legal complexity " "of the GPL or LGPL licenses, it allows developers and companies to spend " "their time creating and promoting good code rather than worrying if that " "code violates licensing." msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/title #: article.translate.xml:555 msgid "Addenda" msgstr "" #. (itstool) path: sect1/programlisting #: article.translate.xml:557 #, no-wrap msgid "" "\n" "[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html\n" "\n" "[2] http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/\n" "\n" "[3] Open Source: the Unauthorized White Papers, Donald K. Rosenberg, IDG " "Books,\n" " 2000. Quotes are from page 114, ``Effects of the GNU GPL''.\n" "\n" "[4] In the \"What License to Use?\" section of\n" " http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/brian.html\n" "\n" "This whitepaper is a condensation of an original work available at\n" "http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~brucem/open_source_license.htm\n" "\n" msgstr ""