Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, without fee and without a signed licensing agreement; and permission use, copy, modify and distribute this software for commercial purposes (such rights not subject to transfer) to BDD member and its affiliates, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions. Contact The Office of Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 510, Berkeley, CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, otl@berkeley.edu, http://ipira.berkeley.edu/industry-info for commercial licensing opportunities.
IN NO EVENT SHALL REGENTS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
REGENTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS". REGENTS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction because only Berkeley Deep Dive members can use it for commercial purposes.
EDIT: The title of this HN topic is wrong. It's not what's in the source and it to be changed. (I'm relieved that it's just a submitter summarizing incorrectly and that Berkeley Deep Dive was not responsible for this mistake.)
So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.
The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses.
Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.
> Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.
I wasn't saying copyleft imposes restrictions on usage.
The first "open-source" criterion says the following (and note that, like you said, this is a restriction on redistribution and not usage):
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
We both agree GPL places a restriction on redistribution (namely: that it must be with source code). However, criterion #1 says very clearly that the license can't place restrictions on software redistribution when it's aggregated with software from different sources.
This is a pretty clear contradiction to me. The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So I don't see how we get to ignore this and cherry-pick what restrictions actually fall under "restrictions"...
GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request.
> The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included".
So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time.
You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it.
I encourage you to take the time to read the GPL FAQ. Even though GPL is not my preferred license I think it is important to have a good understanding of it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html
> So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time. You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it.
No, it makes no difference at all. You cannot redistribute the software unless you are willing and able to redistribute the source code as well. That is very clearly a restriction on your redistribution of the software. The fact that we happen to be talking about the software's own source code makes no difference as to whether it's a restriction or not. It'd be a restriction whether we're talking about "source code", or "$100,000", or anything else. The simple fact that you have to be willing and able to provide {something} before you can redistribute the software is obviously a restriction on your redistribution of the software.
"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman
> When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”
There's a lot of interesting history between the Open Source and Free Software movements, and this is a valuable view of one side of the story. I'd recommend it for people who are interested, though I hope they would also seek out the other side.
However, we're going off topic here. The self-driving download is neither Open Source nor Free Software.
"""
Copyright ©2018. The Regents of the University of California (Regents). All Rights Reserved.
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for educational, research, and not-for-profit purposes, without fee and without a signed licensing agreement; and permission use, copy, modify and distribute this software for commercial purposes (such rights not subject to transfer) to BDD member and its affiliates, is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice, this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies, modifications, and distributions. Contact The Office of Technology Licensing, UC Berkeley, 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 510, Berkeley, CA 94720-1620, (510) 643-7201, otl@berkeley.edu, http://ipira.berkeley.edu/industry-info for commercial licensing opportunities.
IN NO EVENT SHALL REGENTS BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF REGENTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
REGENTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, IF ANY, PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS". REGENTS HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
"""