This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
BSD vs GPL
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"
"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"
But the Point IS (Score:1)
It also prevents people from taking the code and doing a more restrictive, but open version--think of a BSDi except using something like the earliest draft of the APL.
JB
Licenses, Capitalism and Communism (Score:1)
Re:But the Point IS (Score:1)
In defense of the article (Score:2)
For me, the solution has been simple. Avoid using GPLed code at all cost. Its a pity it has to be that way, since I open my source code in a similar matter. I, on the other hand, don't care if someone else takes my code, repackages it, and sells it, as long as they give me some credit. I'm confident that I can do whatever they did, and do it better.
Re:Is BSD "Cathedral" code? (Score:2)
inspired to produce one.
Damn straight.
This whole 'forking' argument is full of bogons.
If its ALL important for all of us to grab ONE rope and pull in ONE direction, why not advocate for ONE world governement to then mandate ALL code produced to be sent to ONE code intergration facility and produce ONE library.
(gumbles about the stupidity of the forking argument)
And, if GNU/Linux is so forking fork proof, why in forking hell does some forking software list as only forking work with certain forking versions of forking GNU-forking-Linux you forkers?
Re:Very biased, IMHO (Score:3)
It also contains a lot of text that on the surface looks like neutral commentary but actually carries a critical undertone:
Here, we see that the GPL places restrictions on any derivative work, whether in whole or in part, verbatim or with modification. This essentially means that the GPL infects, like a hereditary condition, derivative works permanently.
True, but why is this bad (words like infect and condition make it sound negative)? IMO this is good.
I believe the intention of this clause is not to place the output of compilers, parser generators etc under the GPL. But, to use a noddy example, if I write a program that lists itself, the fact that it is the output of a program does not mean that it's suddenly not under the GPL any more.
If the GPL and non-GPL code are distributed together (as is most often logically the case), then the non-GPL code's license, if any, is automatically null and void (may in some cases be illegal) and the entire work is now GPL-infected
It's exactly this clause that stops Microsoft wrapping up a GPL'd program inside a proprietary one and not allowing end users to get at the GPL'd program or its source.
When a program or work is released under a license, this means that you are in effect licensed to use the program. If this is the case, then you are not the real owner of your code, the Free Software Foundation is!
Hmm. Not sure about this. I think if you're the copyright holder, you may re-release it later under a different licence if you want.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. [ This just states that the FSF couldn't find a way to take control of programs that just happen to be stored on the same media as a GPL'ed program! ]
Now this I object to - most unfair. The intention is to clarify: you can distribute GPL and proprietary s/w on the same medium, but proprietary code can't call GPL code.
More political extremism: if you cannot distribute the program in FULL compliance with the GPL, then you cannot distribute it at all. This is nothing more than anti-competitive, anti-capitalism restrictions.
Political extremism my foot - what it says if you can't get away with saying "it wasn't possible for me to respect the licence, so I just ignored it". The author seems to be suggesting that it would be desirable for people to be able to ignore sections of the licence that they didn't feel like respecting. Anti-competitive, anti-capitalist is what Microsoft is. And I wouldn't call taking a free program, adding a feature and then making it proprietary particularly "competitive".
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. [ A rather interesting twist: if part of the license doesn't hold up in the law, the rest of the license still applies. Not sure of the legality of this, and could be up for debate... ]
This is a standard get-out clause in any contract and is necessary. If one part of the GPL was found to be unenforceable in one particlar jurisdiction, you don't want people to be able to ignore the rest of it.
The article is interesting and certainly provokes a reaction, but the author needs to clarify exactly why he objects to the things he does.
Chris
The BSD/GPL difference is pretty simple (Score:1)
The GPL was designed to maximize the Freedom of a program, and make sure that the author's code gets everywhere. It hopes that people are nice enough to include the author's name.
Which you use when writing a new program depends on what your priorities are. Which you use when you modify someone's code depends on what the code is. The BSD advertising clause is just as infectious as the GPL's terms.
Re:The BSD/GPL difference is pretty simple (Score:1)
Good? (Score:1)
To me it appears more like flamebait from a heavily biased bsd advocate. Ofcourse i'm biased too since i personally think the bsd license has its place, but it's way too vulnarable for exploitation. If you look at it realistically, placing the Linux kernel under the BSD license would have disasterous consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if in an instant several incompatible versions would pop-up, creating the same crap proprietary Unices once suffered from: incompatibilities and vendor-lockin. Lets not be so naive to think that if people have the opportunity to screw another person for profit they won't, or will give stuff back to the community from their own incentive. I have heard this argument from some bsd advocates in the past. The BSD license encourages this exploitation and the vendor-lockin tactics all too familiar to many of us who have been forced to work with proprietary software. The GPL may give some (sometimes serious) problems when mixing with other licenses which makes it sometimes very frustrating to work with, but its still the most effective license when it comes to protecting freedom in the long term.
The author of this article also calls Rms a communist extremist. That, and various other less than objective cheap comments make me believe that this is an article written by a person disgruntled bsd advocate rather than somebody honestly comparing the drawbacks and purposes of the various licenses.
Re: Good? (Score:1)
>>Linux kernel under the BSD license would have >>disasterous consequences. I wouldn't be >>surprised if in an instant several incompatible >>versions would pop-up, creating the same crap >>proprietary Unices once suffered from: >>incompatibilities and vendor-lockin.
>So why hasn't this happened with *BSD?
It has, look at BSDi and all the chunks of BSD code tucked away in all sorts of operating systems like the various win flavours.
>Seriously, people here worry about Microsoft >using Linux to create their own proprietary >Unix. So why haven't they done this with BSD?
Because BSD has never had the mindshare and popularity that Linux is getting at the moment. And BSD is used in all sorts of ways by companies - without giving back their modifications. So it has allready happened.
>For my stuff, which I haven't had time to work >on so it isn't out there, I will use the X >license. I don't worry about people making money >off of extending my code any more than I worry >about people making money using my code, as my >code will still remain free. Someone else's >extension of my stuff won't, but I will be no >worse off as a result.
I wouldn't be bothered by releasing the stuff that i code too since they are not essential for a lot of people and there isn't much money to be made with it anyway, but when you get to things like the Linux kernel, where standards are important, the risk becomes too big to give third parties the chance to lock people into proprietary extentions. While the programmers effectively gain nothing from such a move, it opens a huge security risk. And while there's only proprietary clone of BSD, BSDI, there are lots of places where bsd pieces are used (like the network stack for example) where modifications are made without giving them back to the original coders.
ps: quoting in this itty bitty box sucks
Re:Best of both worlds? (Score:1)
On a final note, I think trying to create a software licence by a committiee with parties from the FSF and BSD advocates is doomed to a long slow death from conflicting viewpoints.
Re:Is there a licence that does: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, software licensing is an almost inherently complex process if you intend to protect freedom for all of your users. I think you'd be surprised how long a license that did everything you wanted would be.
Re:emailed the author: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh... No perfect solution. (Score:2)
Re:Malda has lost all integrity (Score:2)
Re:Best of both worlds? (Score:3)
Seriously Flawed (Score:4)
First, the article is wrong in some basic facts. Flex is not under the GPL, so it's output is not GPL. The output of Bison was only covered by the GPL because the "output" of bison included a very large chunk of Bison parser code written by Stallman into the output, not just because the the Bison parser spits out code. Additionally, it has been quite some time since this code was GPL'd. It is now under a license that allows proprietary use. These are just a couple of examples.
Second, his explanation of the "meat" of the BSD license leaves out the advertising clause. Whoops. I wonder how he could have overlooked such a wonderful feature
Third, this guy's legal analysis of the GPL is pretty flawed. If you have concerns about the license, I suggest hiring a real lawyer to look it over.
But most importantly, this article is simply an anti-GPL screed full of abuse for the GPL, the FSF, etc. I wonder if Michael Maxwell is a pseudonym for John Dyson? Listen to a few of these things:
-- "the GPL is more concerned with political extremism rather promoting free software"
-- "This clause reeks of political extremism"
-- "If this is the case, then you are not the real owner of your code, the Free Software Foundation is!"
-- "This just states that the FSF couldn't find a way to take control of programs that just happen to be stored on the same media as a GPL'ed program!"
-- "This sounds much like a Microsoft-style license"
-- "Not sure of the legality of this, and could be up for debate"
-- "the General Public License is not so much about ``keeping free software free'' as it is about forcing us to accept the extreme Communistic political philosophy of Richard Stallman"
-- "The GPL is not about freedom."
As you can see, lots of FUD and anger. And aside from its obvious biases, it is full of so many inaccuracies that I urge everyone to completely discount anything it says. I suggest contacting Jordan Hubbard of the FreeBSD project for more clear, accurate, and reasoned information on the BSD community's thoughts on this issue if this article caused you any major concerns.
Comercial linux software.... (Score:1)
IF the author of this article is correct about all deriviative software having to GPL'd, which i think he is becuase the GPL states this very clearly, how can there be any comercial software for linux, the libc (glibc) is GPL, kernel is GPL and so is most of the rest of the operating system..... so, based on this license anything that uses glibc (which by the way would include Lokisoft's Civilization: Call To Power), how can there ever be commercial software for linux?
Re:GPL-infected (Score:1)
In the manner in which the term 'respect' was used, yes. At least to the best of my knowledge, there is no non-free source used in GPL products. I can respect YOUR LICENSE without respecting YOU.
Re:GPL-infected (Score:1)
Hmm, lost some text without realizing it. That last sentance was supposed to read.
"I can respect the TERMS of YOUR LICENSE without respecting YOU.
Re: Foggy thinking, and an ad hominem attack (Score:1)
"Surely that's no worse than Microsoft taking BSD code and putting it in their product. How can you complain about the GPL when an expressed aim of the BSD license is to make it available for the use of those who might keep derivatives closed? I think you missed the context of that quote, I was responding to someone who suggested if you don't like the license then don't use the code, I'm pointing out that GPL advocates don't necessarily live by that."
Quite the contrary, GPL advocates LOVE the terms of the BSD license, because they can use the code in their project(s) and still release it under the terms of the GPL. They just don't think the BSD license offers enough protection of their code to prevent a corp. from hi-jacking the code and re-releasing it as proprietary, thereby screwing the original writier out of the potential benefits of his work.
Re:In defense of the article (Score:1)
The GPL doesn't prevent someone repackaging your code and selling it. It prevents them from creating a closed-system out of your GPL'd code and selling it to lock you out of the market.
If I understand it correctly, the gist of the BSD license is, 'Give the original author(s) credit for the work they did. Feel free to re-license this however you like.' That means if I want to, I could take a BSD'd project, steal it, re-release it under a different license, and then say, 'Golly, gee! This new license doesn't require me to give you poor suckers credit anymore, so I'm going to claim this was all MY work!'
Re:How does the GPL infect a code tree? (Score:1)
You can "infect" your code tree with the GPL iff (that's 'If and Only If') you borrow some previously GPL'd code and use it in said code tree.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good? (Score:1)
So why hasn't this happened with *BSD?
Seriously, people here worry about Microsoft using Linux to create their own proprietary Unix. So why haven't they done this with BSD?
For my stuff, which I haven't had time to work on so it isn't out there, I will use the X license. I don't worry about people making money off of extending my code any more than I worry about people making money using my code, as my code will still remain free. Someone else's extension of my stuff won't, but I will be no worse off as a result.
Using code is voluntary, folks (Score:1)
FSF can (sometimes) sue (Score:1)
I have no basis to disagree with your analysis of 'problematic' parts of the GPL, but at least this one point is not quite as weak, I think, as you portray it.
--Chouser
bifurcated strategy, not tit-for-tat (Score:1)
Re:Comercial linux software.... (Score:1)
I don't see what's wrong with it (Score:2)
Re:How does the GPL infect a code tree? (Score:1)
As an example, consider GPL'd libraries. Linking your proprietary program with one is certainly considered fair usage, and legally the GPL would fail in this instance.
I don't know that a claim that linking to a library was "fair use" of that library has ever been tested in court. However, the use of entire works for copyright purposes -- particularly when such works are not fictional -- is almost never considered to be "fair use".
If it were fair use, I could ship the majority of almost any Microsoft product as part of my software (by using it as a library -- most of them are libraries already) and pay no licensing fees.
Of course, perhaps you simply mean running a program linked against a library -- not distributing binaries linked against that library. In this case, the GPL places no restrictions on what you may do; you can use GPLed software however you want. (And in this case you might have a defense under copyright law, too.)
The biggest problem with the GPL is that it places restrictions that it doesn't have the legal grounds under copyright law to do. . . .
The lawyers who have reviewed the GPL don't think so. :)
Re: Restrictively Unrestrictive (Score:5)
Here's the email I wrote a week ago when I first read this article. It says mostly things other people have said in these comments, but not entirely.
RMS responded to the email and said, "It is clear that the article you're commenting on was completely confused."
It is my opinion that this article is not, in any sense, a good article. It consists almost entirely of acrimonious accusations and misstatements of fact that can generously be described as gross misunderstandings.
I am willing to have this comment posted as a Slashdot article if the Slashdot gods see fit to do so.
Re:Who are you to tell me what license I should us (Score:1)
But that's just their tough luck. This "company X" can take BSD code, for NOTHING, make their proprietary changes, then treat the result as a proprietary whole. Now, maybe the BSD guys are happy to have other people profiting from their hard work, but if it was *my* code, I'd want something in return.
With GPL code, if company X wants to distribute their derivative work, they have to give their modifications back to the community - and that's where the original authors get their "something in return".
I personally think the world is a better place for all the free software floating around. GPL's virality promotes more free software, which can only be a good think, as far as I'm concerned.
--
Re:Program output GPL'd?? (Score:1)
Oh, and I don't even have delusions of lawyerhood.
Daniel
He didn't write it for you to rip off. (Score:1)
Fact check (Score:1)
The FSF has never *ever* taken anyone to court over the GPL.
The GPL has never been tested in a court of law, in any place of the world.
The exact interpretation of the language in the GPL is open to argument until a pertinent court decides on it.
Re:Comercial linux software.... (Score:1)
Re:Who are you to tell me what license I should us (Score:1)
I work for a company that produces automated test equipment. One of our big "intellectual" assets is how we make electrical measurements. Still, our systems need an RTOS, networking, code, etc., and porting a GPL OS would require the writing of device drivers, among other things.
Such code would NOT be a strategic asset for us, and cost little to give away: it would be of no value to a competitor unless we both used the same (commodity) hardware (in which case it would be a strategic asset). Typically, we design our own hardware, and the drivers are useless to competitors unless they steal the design for that hardware. They would however, be useful to our customers, who might find and fix bugs, improve performance, etc. (which benetits us, as well).
Re:Very biased, IMHO (Score:2)
I happen to agree with Stephen's assessment that this is very biased. Worse, the author appears to be flaming. Any unbiased comparision of the licenses would have to stick to the points of the licences itself and show that the conclusions drawn from the clauses are good or bad. The author definitely goes beyond this by resorting to name calling in an effort to sling mud at the GPL (Communistic philosophies?).
Rhetoric, is useful for swaying the illiterate masses. As far as determining the truth, it is absolutely useless. At best, things can be stated more simply without resorting to rhetoric. At worst, rhetoric can be used to dress up falsehood in the garb of truth. So when the author started slinging rhetorical barbs at the opposing camp, he exposed his own intellectual dishonesty.
Re:Very biased, IMHO (Score:2)
The FSF might resort to rhetoric, and so could the people responsible for the BSD licenses. The point that I was trying to make was that rhetoric has no place in what claims to be an independant assessment of the two licenses to determine which one is better.
Whatever the philosophies and motivation of Stallman et al, they are totally irrelevant to determining the efficacy of the license. Karl Marx himself could have written the BSD license, but it wouldnt matter a damn as to how it could be used. And the same is true for the GPL. The uses a license can be put to depend soley upon the clauses of the license. So why resort to this mudslinging unless one wanted to obscure the truth?
GPL-infected (Score:1)
Now just to be childish they call it a VIRUS.
Re:GPL-infected (Score:1)
So I should be forced to adopt your license? If you want to use my code deal with it! If you don't like it, what the hell is stoping you from coding the other 10%. Don't talk about being forced to change your license when your not being forced. Code it yourself.
Re:How does the GPL infect a code tree? (Score:1)
Here are some examples:
- I write mycode.c on Solaris using vi. I then compile it and copy it over to Linux, where I run it via a Solaris emulator system of some kind. The mycode.c code does not have to be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c on Solaris using vi. I then copy that code to my Linux system and recompile it with gcc. Since I only link to LGPLed code (GPL plus an exception for linking to libraries), mycode.c does not have to be GPL.
- I write mycode.c on Linux using GNU Emacs, and I don't use any GPLed libraries (such as readline). Same deal; mycode.c does not have to be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c (using any text editor or OS), and I use functions from GNU Readline, a GPLed library. Now mycode.c must be GPLed.
- I write mycode.c (again, any text editor or OS), and I copy some code from GNU Emacs and link with it. Again, mycode.c must be GPLed.
So, you can tell your PHBs that merely writing or compiling code on Linux doesn't force you to GPL it. You have to look at the licenses for all the individual components. In most cases, the licenses will be LGPL or BSD/X, which is OK.
Is there a licence that does: (Score:1)
1) this licence applies to this work and any derivative or modification of this work
2) source code must be made available upon request.
3) the original author and licence must be made clear in the source code and resulting program.
4) modifications to this work must be documented to give proper credit
5) a program which uses this work as a "library" is not bound by this licence.
Essentially the spirit of GPL without much of the excess baggage and other strange clauses.
Interesting... (Score:1)
I, on the other hand, see BSD's nonrestrictiveness as a loophole. Yes, people can use my code fairly. Most do that. Hell, even Apple, the supposed "kind of closed" is doing it. However, it also means that MS could rip off my code just by making minor changes to it (note that I define "use" and "rip off" differently, the main difference being that "ripped-off" code is closed up, and the one who rips it off attempts to profit from it without even acknowledging of the original author).
In the end I think I'm probably being too cynical while the author of this article is being overly naive. The truth is likely somewhere between the two.
Quite easily... (Score:1)
There you go; proprietary Linux software.
And get it through your skull: Open-Source and commercial are not opposites by any means. You're confusing "commercial" with "proprietary." There's plenty of proprietary software that's available for free (anything the author calls "freeware" counts as this), and there's some Open-Source software which is sold.
Re:But.. GPL IS communistic (Score:1)
Communism: It's all of ours, the people's, with the government controlling the disbursment.
You've got socialism and communism mixed up. Marx and Engels predicted that in order for a real communist society to form the people would first need a government to create order and make sure everyone gets their equal share - a Socialist state.
When the state had become able to support itself the government would fade away and the people would rule themselves - a Communist state.
It seems that most people on this thread are thinking of the Soviet Union and China when they talk about Communism. Both however, were/are socialist dictatorships, not true Marxist Communisms.
Re:communism = evil | GNU =! evil (Score:2)
Are you referring to the Soviet Union's/China's socialist dictatorships, or real Marxist Communism? The entire basis of communism is to have an economic system in which the people share in the profits of their labor. Sharing is evil?
Notice how I said economic system. Communism is not a form of government. The premise behind it is that the people are capable of governing themselves, therefore a true communism cannot really exist without being democratic.
Communism is just a nice dream that never works; it is bad, but a nice thought.
Communism has never been implemented on a large scale. The only real communist societies that ever been implemented are small "Utopian" societies, many of which failed because the people became greedy.
The socialist society created in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution helped it immensely, though. The literacy rate soared and the country quickly changed from one of the word's most backwards nations to one the world's most industrialized. Then Stalin came to power and suddenly communism was considered evil because of one man's ruthlessness.
Communistic system murdered incredible amounts of humans in russia and china and are totally bloated and corrupted.
The communist (socialist, really) system in China and the Soviet Union didn't murder millions of people, it was the dictatorship.
Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I greatly respect the communist ideals and hate it when people misinterpret them. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot hates the fact that the word "Hacker" has gotten a bad name because it became associated with something that doesn't at all relate to the original defintion. Same thing here.
emailed the author: (Score:2)
2) the GPL has a different understanding of "freedom" than BSD licensing does. the intent of GPL as virus is to ensure that every person who comes across the software has the same rights to modify and pass on the code as every other preceding person. BSD allows an author anywhere in the code-chain the power to restrict access to the code to the next ppl down the chain. so, BSD is mostly concerned with giving the creator and derivative creator more control over her software whereas GPL is more concerned with allowing every person equal access at every level.
at this point the argument is whether a creator should or should not have such control over her output. and given that software is a) not a tangible thing and b) is easily replicated and modified, can software be treated the same way as say a painting or a chair? see: http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.htm
just some thoughts for you to digest if you're thinking of a follow-up article.
stephen waters
internal systems admin
amicus networks
Re:Is BSD "Cathedral" code? (Score:1)
As a developer I would very much like to see my software contributions still to be free, and not used in a proprietary product by some company.
I prefer RedHat before Sun, and companies like RedHat are quickly winning ground against proprietary providers.
Re:Program output GPL'd?? (Score:1)
This meant that you could only use bison parsers in free software. (The FSF have since changed the bison license to allow use of bison parsers in non-free parsers.)
The bison info file (under copying) has a better explanation.
Re:Very biased, IMHO (Score:3)
What is needed is a discussion of the two licenses that does not assume some set of needs and desires, and discusses how the licenses serve two different ends, discusses those ends, and discusses how it could affect use of your code.
In other words, we need something to give "objective" information about the two licenses so that the _reader and developer_ can make an informed decision.
Re:Solaris != BSD... (Score:1)
GPL has held up in court (Score:1)
The NeXT folks took gcc and adapted it for their
Objective C compiler. Only problem is, they
tried to make the resulting compiler proprietary.
The FSF took them to court. The FSF won, and
now GCC compiles Objective C too.
There have been a handfull of other cases too.
I stand corrected (Score:1)
actual documentation before posting.
JOOC, I seem to remember there being some
controversy with NeXT, though -- was that just
a matter of caving-under-bad-pr, or further
misinformation on my part?
He says's FSF is extreme... (Score:1)
Both the FSF and BSD camps feel strongly about their philosophies. Both have good points. I guess it depends on your perspective.
Daniel
Re:Sigh... No perfect solution in BSD or GPL. (Score:1)
blood writing, make some utterly trivial change to it, then distribute it under a proprietary license and make a huge
profit and I never see a penny. In addition, if they made VALUABLE changes, they would be closed, not keeping with
the "open source" spirit under which the original code was written. Licensing under GPL prevents this.
The GPL only partially protects against this. It does not protect against cases where:
- you write an amazing program
- some big corporations takes it, and makea a few insignificant tweaks
- big corporation sells "distributions" of your code, while you get nothing
This, to me, seems to be the big problem with both BSD and GPL. They both allow people to gain equal profit regardless of how little work they've done. Because we live in a capitalist society, the end result is that those who do more work get less.
That's why open source developers have to get real jobs, and can only work on free projects in our spare time. That "Commercial Open Source" idea is looking better all the time.
LinuxToday discussion link (Score:1)
I really hope this article is not representative of the opinions of the BSD community as a whole.
Re: Foggy thinking, and an ad hominem attack (Score:1)
Surely that's no worse than Microsoft taking BSD code and putting it in their product. How can you complain about the GPL when an expressed aim of the BSD license is to make it available for the use of those who might keep derivatives closed?
"if your license doesn't allow me to do that that, then you are a facist."
I am a GPL advocate, and I wouldn't say something like that. That's an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. I assumed that you were originally talking about the BSD license. For the reason given in response to the first quote, BSDers have nothing to complain about if someone decides to re-release under the GPL.
If we are talking about licenses in general, then it is not even legal to re-release the code under GPL if the original license doesn't permit. If it could be demonstrated that the GPLed work was derived from the original, then the GPL would be void with respect to that work.
At the worst, I would be regretful that the work was not available for reuse under the GPL, but this is no different from the BSDer who regrets that they cannot release a piece of GPLed code under a BSD license.
Josh
Re: Foggy thinking, and an ad hominem attack (Score:1)
You're right, many don't. I was just a bit confused because your reply was to militant GPLers in general rather than the person who made the original post.
"Although you seem reasonable,..."
Thanks
"I'm sure you'll admit that many GPL advocates are quite militant about their license, just look at any QT or APSL discussion, even this discussion, there seems to be a large number of pro-GPL people who won't even consider alternative viewpoints, they simply dismiss any criticism as FUD or flame-baiting, those are the people I am refering to there."
True, although most of them are no worse than Mike Maxwell (author of "Restrictively Unrestricted"). I'll give you BSDers the benefit of the doubt, and assume that most of y'all are better than him.
My apologies for the misunderstanding,
Josh
Re:GPL-infected (Score:1)
If I am unwilling or unable to change my license to GPL, then I can't use your code, and your so-called "free" GPL code is not so "free", is it?
Re:Best of both worlds? (Score:1)
For me, the best of both world license is one that allows code to become proprietary only under the author(s) terms.
The GPL is totally against proprietary software, BSD allows anyone to make it proprietary.
Some people have told me that the GPL works this way, if you want to allow your code to be used in a proprietary project, then you simply relicense it. This is true, but it goes against the spirit of the GPL
I see (Score:1)
What's wrong with taking exception to parts of the GPL? He raises some good points, I see few good answers, only flames.
Re:Using code is voluntary, folks (Score:1)
Re:GPL-infected (Score:1)
Re:See what ? (Score:1)
The GPL and FSF are "differently politically persuaded"
I don't see hate in the article, but you seem to think like the politically correct people where "hate" seems to be defined as any viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own.
What kind of world is it where you can't point out the obvious similarities between the writings of Stallman and Marx without being accused of name calling?
Worse you restate the article, where does the author suggest banning the GPL, for instance? He is merely suggesting that the BSD is superior. The FSF does the exact same thing on their web site.
Re: Foggy thinking, and an ad hominem attack (Score:1)
I think you missed the context of that quote, I was responding to someone who suggested if you don't like the license then don't use the code, I'm pointing out that GPL advocates don't necessarily live by that.
I am a GPL advocate, and I wouldn't say something like that. That's an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. I assumed that you were originally talking about the BSD license. For the reason given in response to the first quote, BSDers have nothing to complain about if someone decides to re-release under the GPL.
Although you seem reasonable, I'm sure you'll admit that many GPL advocates are quite militant about their license, just look at any QT or APSL discussion, even this discussion, there seems to be a large number of pro-GPL people who won't even consider alternative viewpoints, they simply dismiss any criticism as FUD or flame-baiting, those are the people I am refering to there.
Re:But.. GPL IS communistic (Score:1)
It's mine, but if you invest in it, it'll grow, and you will get a bigger one for yourself, or you can buy the rights to it for a greater sum of money.
What you stated was more the concept of private property.
Also, I believe that pure Marxist Communism is supposed to exist on its own, without the government, although the government was supposed to provide the catalyst to get to pure communism.
But still, I agree with you that the GPL is Communistic in nature
Re:Consider: GPL KILLER, a license to infect GPL c (Score:1)
You wouldn't be allowed to use it with GPL code since it would then be incompatable with the GPL.
That's one problem with GPL, it's incompatible with equivalent free software licenses.
Re:Very biased, IMHO (Score:2)
You should expect at least as much rhetoric from the other side.
"Communistic philosophies" is appropriate, Stallman's views on software have many parallels to Marx's views on socio-economics, he even went so far as to call his mission statement the "GNU manifesto", which by name association will make people think of the Communist Manifesto.
Re:Old article, and not a good one at that (Score:2)
Marx was against private property, Stallman is against private Intellectual property.
Marx believed in the principle of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", Stallman believes that software should work that way, that coders should code and share with everybody.
Re:Very biased, IMHO (Score:1)
I wish people would take licensing issues a bit more coldly. the MIT-X and the GPL are just not made for teh same purposes; one is a "do what you want", the other is a "copyleft". there's more than enough room for both, and they're not best for the same things. it's really simple: you write an app that you don't want proprietary forked versions of, you use the GPL. if you don't mind, you use the MIT-X-l. one case where I'd definitely use the MIT-X license would be for the implementation of some protocol that I wanted to push, and that I wanted many programs to be interoprable with. in other cases, like programs made just to "make a point", public domain can be the most appropriate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Comercial linux software.... (Score:1)
Free does not mean gratis. It comes from freedom.
There is commercial software for Linux. And it is GPLed. Look at what Corel is doing. Look at RedHat.
Alejo.
Re:For another comparison... (Score:1)
Well, that was an interesting article, but its conclusion that the Gs will win makes a few assumptions that don't appear to be valid.
cjs
Re: Good? (Score:1)
If you want widely to promulgate a particular piece of software, the GPL is a reasonable means of doing that. On the other hand, if you're trying to promulgate an open standard, the BSD licence is a much better strategy. When a company is making a network device, they need a network stack. The most expensive option is usually writing it yourself. A less expensive option is to go to a company that already has one (say, Microsoft or Novell) and license that. However, if there is an even less expensive option yet, that being taking a free implementation of TCP/IP and putting it in your proprietary product, it makes sense to go for that instead.
It's these commercial users `stealing' (in fact, taking what's freely given) the BSD networking code that widely deployed TCP/IP, and thus created the conditions necessary for a non-proprietary Internet. The Internet has (IMHO) done more to increase free software development than anything else out there. (I personally can't imagine how more than a hundred geographically separated developers could work on a system like NetBSD without the easy CVS access we all have via the Internet.)
cjs
Re:Why not contact the Author?! (Score:1)
cjs
Re:emailed the author: (Score:1)
Also, libertarianism is hardly a far-right (or far-left) philosophy. Indeed it was probably the predominant philosophy in America before New Deal-Great Society socialism took over.
Re:Communism (Score:1)
It's much closer to the philosophy of Singapore than pure Marxism; the only difference is that they have diametrically opposed positions on the value of capitalism. Needless to say, the former was qualitatively more right (they're here, the Soviets aren't, and the Chinese are doing what Singapore does, just more oppresively).
Good point (Score:1)
There is no point getting pissed off about this kind of thing happening after the fact. If you didn't want your program closed off, then you should have released it under a licence that matches your intentions.
I use GPL for most of my packages, since it reflects my intention for future use/expansion of it.
Old article, and not a good one at that (Score:2)
I could point out the many problems with the article, but that has already been done. Take a look at the comments at Linux Today [linuxtoday.com]. There are a lot of interesting comments there.
No one can claim that GPL is communistic, when we have both commercial entities and cooperative groups using the licence for their produces. And a lot of the uncertainty about the clauses in the GPL, where there is uncertainty, you usually find a clarification as an exception/addition to the licence.
Re:Program output GPL'd?? (Score:3)
Running it as "cat --help" would probably count as a work derived from the program. The output of "cat ~/my-text-file" would not. The reason for the wording is to stop people claiming the output of "cat cat.c" (printing out the program's own source code) is not covered by any licence.
In cases like gcc and bison, where the output contains some output that is the same for reguardless of input file (gcc's crt1.o, or bison's standard code for all parsers) and this output would reasonably be considered derived from the program, there are usually special exceptions to clear up any confusion.
don't call GPL "viral", call it "tit-for-tat" (Score:5)
- Computer programs competing with each other are like players in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game.
- Letting another program copy your code is like playing "Cooperate" in the game.
- Refusing to let another program copy your code is like playing "Defect".
- Closed-source programs are playing the "Always defect" strategy.
- Programs with a BSD license are playing the "Always cooperate" strategy.
- Programs with a GPL license are playing the "Tit for tat" strategy.
- In simulations of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, tit-for-tat players usually do better in the long run than players who always cooperate or those who always defect; therefore, GPL programs are likely to displace BSD programs in the long run.
I have some reservations about Rysdam's model, but I would love to see more analyses of this type.Re:Licenses, Capitalism and Communism (Score:1)
Malicious forking? (Score:2)
Take Mozilla, for example. Ever since they went under dual NPL/GPL licensing, they've opened themselves up to the danger of forking. But it hasn't happened, and probably won't. There is already much goodwill in the OSS community toward Mozilla.org because they are doing things correctly, and even more, RMS himself has asked that people work with (and not against) them.
Malicious forking? I would imagine this to be "hey, I'll fork the code tree for program X, add a feature or two, and put it out so that I can slap my name all over it." If X is already under GPL, then this is going to be a lot of trouble (maintaining an entire code tree) for comparatively little return (whee! see my kewl splash screen!) I doubt this would ever happen.
(The whole NeoPlanet/ActiveX control flap comes close... but that was module ownership, not code forking)
Sigh... No perfect solution. (Score:3)
I tend to agree with every point made.
However, I tend to favor the GPL over the BSD license myself for code I write and release to the public, in spite of the GPL's problems, for one big reason, which the author did explore:
With the BSD license, some big wealthy corporation could hijack some code I spent hours and hours and sweat and blood writing, make some utterly trivial change to it, then distribute it under a proprietary license and make a huge profit and I never see a penny. In addition, if they made VALUABLE changes, they would be closed, not keeping with the "open source" spirit under which the original code was written. Licensing under GPL prevents this.
Of course, I would still have one defense in such a case. I could do my best to get the word out that BiGreedy Corp.'s XYZ datadiddler (that I actually wrote) was available for free at ftp://gotohell.BiGreedy.jerks.com thus undermining their profitability. If they had made valuable addititions, I could attempt to add them to the still open version (or encourage others to do it and keep the code open). However, such an "education campaign" itself would be a really big effort.
In any case, neither license is perfect, and I often find myself wishing for a hybrid of the two.
However, I REALLY don't want to advocate yet-another-open-source-license! So, I don't have a good answer as to how to address the issues raised.
Re:Malda has lost all integrity (Score:3)
This editorial, even though it may contain factual inacuracies and opinions we don't agree with, as an editorial still falls under the catigory "News for nerds, Stuff that matters", IMHO.
Heck,
I don't expect
Re:Peace and Harmony and all that (Score:3)
Those who favor GPL and those who favor *BSD have more in common than not. They also have bigger opponents than each other.
Hear hear!!
PLEASE let's not have any BSD vs. GPL flamewars! Both are imperfect but noble attempts to accomplish essentially the SAME THING.
We are friends here, not rivals!
Comment removed (Score:5)
Not so good... (Score:2)
Some? it's a pure flame against GPL:
"the General Public License is not so much about ``keeping free software free'' as it is about forcing us to accept the extreme
Communistic political philosophy of Richard Stallman and others at the Free Software Foundation. The very spirit of the GPL is to attack the very
concept of Capitalism and individualism"
Eh, not a good article IMHO
"Indeed,
Richard Stallman himself would prefer that we recognize the Linux operating system as ``GNU/Linux'' instead, because of the fact that almost all
of the code is GPL'ed. The Linux kernel itself is not a GNU/FSF product, however."
No It's not the kernel that should be called GNU/Linux It is the entire operating system; kernel + the rest of which much indeed are made by FSF
"since most of the body of code in the ``GNU/Linux''
system is GPL'ed, there is no hope of ever changing the licensing - they've gone too far to turn back now. "
Linux != BSD, and never will be. Is that so scary?
"The GPL is not about freedom"
Yes it is
"But the fact that the GPL can infect code derived from other GPL'ed programs, as well as the fact that the output of some GPL'ed
programs must also be GPL'ed, is unacceptable. In fact, it should be contested over its shaky sense of legality in these matters. I'm not aware of
any court cases involving the GPL so far, so we have yet to see what will happen when such an issue arises. I can only hope that the courts will
decide against the GPL's habit of infecting other code."
He wishes the GPL to lose in court!!!, I could understan if a Microsoft troll wanted GNU/Linux to be destroyed but a UNIX brother?
/sorry for the bad textformatting...
Peace and Harmony and all that (Score:5)
First of all, my personal opinion is that a person (or entity) who writes code has the right to determine the terms of how that code is distributed. When I write a program, I can release it under public domain, BSD-style license, GPL, or whatever. Heck, I can create a license that forces people to "subscribe" to my program and send me money every year or it shuts down. Nobody is obligated to use my software if they don't like my license.
In fact, I believe that terms of use are a feature of software -- just like speed, ease-of-use, and reliablility. I only wish we had software consumers who were more educated about EULAs and what clicking that "Next" button during the install really means.
I'm very leery of an interpretation of the GPL from someone whom I don't believe is a lawyer. The use of terms like "communist" and "viral" is simply inflammatory.
I do understand why people who favor a BSD-style license are concerned about developers using GPL without considering a BSD license. Thanks to the attention focused on Linux, there's a certain "trendiness" to releasing code under the GPL today. In some cases, a BSD license may be more appropriate and beneficial.
Developing Free Software is often a labor of love. For some, it's their art. I sympathize with a developer who worries that their work will be "embraced and extended" by a corporate entity and they'll never see what happens to it. The GPL prevents this (even for developers who might find the license's introduction a little heavy-handed).
Finally, I think the LAST thing that GPL and *BSD users should be doing is fighting each other. I'm sure there are people growing interested in *BSD as a result of "Linux hype". I'm sure there are people who use both. I'm sure there are people who switched to *BSD after using Linux. I saw yesterday's news about AOL's interest in a *BSD-powered set-top as proof that the attention is benefitting everyone.
Those who favor GPL and those who favor *BSD have more in common than not. They also have bigger opponents than each other.
Re:My problem with it (Score:2)
I don't have really hard-and-firm sources on this info, it just comes from a few years back when I had an Altos 586 machine with Microsoft Xenix on it and was researching the history of the OS my machine. So if somebody can correct me on this, I'd be glad to learn more.
Re:Why not contact the Author?! (Score:2)
It seems so damn simple to me.
Yes, but its still up to that person, and beyond that... what happens if its a GPL'd library, and each routine is GPL'd by a different person? Should I then contact 30 different people to try and get them to LGPL their code for me? And if one says no, I have to rewrite his code anyways...
or if its all part of one library, does that mean that even though 29 of 30 people said they'd LGPL their code, its all still GPL'd because of *one* person who won't LGPL??
Personally, I don't care if company X takes my code and makes a profit on it... I'm not writing it to make money, I'm writing it because:
a) I like programming, its interesting & fun.
b) Its probably something I need or is useful to me.
c) After A & B, maybe someone else can use it.
The point of the BSD license is that if company X is building a new high-performance router engine and wants to use BSD code as a base, they can. They don't have to publish/provide their proprietary algorithms to the world just because they put some new drivers and kernel code into the system (which would give their competitors all their performance secrets and hurt their business). All they have to do is acknowledge that it uses BSD code.
In contrast, under GPL they would *have* to publish their mods, which their competition could then take for themselves, build a competing unit and sell at a cut-rate cost (gee... look ma, *no* software development costs for *our* unit!) and put the company and the programmers that wrote the code (worst case) out of business!
So you wonder why a company would rather use BSD code rather than GPL?
Who are you to tell me what license I should use? (Score:2)
But, hey, like has been said before... it up to *me* to decide how I want *my* code to be used... so don't preach to me about how *your* license is best if it doesn't fit my idea about the future of *my* code.
I posted in a different spot, but the basic difference between BSD and GPL for company "X" that wants to use the code is as follows:
Company "X" is making a new high-performance router engine and wants to avoid re-inventing an OS or purchasing a commercial RTOS for big $$$ (and the obvious effect on the bottom line, always a big concern for the "shirts")...
Using BSD code, they take the OS and have some of their programmers spend a few hundred man-hours writing proprietary driver code and tweaking the kernel to get optimum performance for their product. They can sell the resulting product and not publish any of their proprietary code. They have a top-selling/top-performing product for a year before the competition catches up...
Using GPL code, they take the OS and have some of their programmers spend a few hundred man-hours writing proprietary driver code and tweaking the kernel to get optimum performance for their product. Again, they can sell the resulting product, but in keeping with GPL they have to publish their code (thus making it non-proprietary I guess)... Their competition can look at all the code, whip out a new product in a few months with little or *NO* software development costs (after all, company "X" paid *their* programmers to write it, but company's "Y" and "Z" get their work for free)... sell it for less money (less startup costs w/ no man-hours on programming) and steal business away from company "X". Worst case, company "X" goes out of business because they were *forced* to give away trade secrets by the GPL.
And you would wonder why a company would want to avoid GPL'd code?
Now, of course, the license you choose for your work depends on your own idealogical point of view. If you are a anti-"shirt" anti-business zealot, of course you choose GPL. If you don't like the idea of anybody using your code for profit, for whatever reason, you'd choose GPL. If you don't care that someone may profit from your code later, as long as they acknowledge your contribution, you'd probably choose BSD.
My personal choice is BSD... if its not yours, great! Personally, I write code because I like writing code, its fun and interesting and usually its something that is useful to me at the time... and if it can be useful to someone else, great! If you take my code, put some of your own novel ideas into it and sell it... hey, go for it! I'm not in it for the money, I have a job for that. If I was a good BS-artist "shirt" type I could probably sell some of the stuff myself for good money... but, then again, money isn't my prime motivator.
Maybe that isn't for you... great for you! You are entitled to whatever choice you make. I can choose to be Buddhist and you can choose to be Christian... great!! We could have some fun idealogical discussions, but don't get in my face about how your religion is "the only one for the world".
Now, I would like to add that GPL'd code doesn't prevent someone from profiting... obviously RedHat and Caldera make money providing support and documentation and their own "userland". Yes, they have to give the code away, but they can still profit. And we have some Xerox printer/copier units here at work that the service guy says have embedded Linux/PC's in them as controllers. Obviously Xerox makes money selling the units... now, are they following the GPL and publishing the code? Got me... I'm not the GPL police and really don't care to be. And if they are breaking the GPL, who exactly is going to sue them to stop it? FSF? The authors (how many are there now??)??
Hmm... if I take your code, GPL'd or BSD'd, and stip off your license statement, and compile it into my product and put a licensing statement into it that its "illegal to disassemble/reverse-engineer this product" (as I've seen many times before)... how would anybody know anyways??? And if they did find out, what an interesting legal battle that would be... "you broke my license agreement in order to discover that I broke yours". I'd love to get a transcript of that case...
At any rate... you make the choice for *your* code. GPL? Fine. BSD? Fine. Write your own? Fine. Doesn't matter to me... thats what freedom of choice is all about. Lots of Free Software, lots of licensing choices, and its all up to you to choose which you use... isn't freedom great?
About some things commented on here... (Score:3)
I'll start off by putting on my asbestos underwear.
I support intellectual property that is truly new and unique. I DO NOT support ideas that are not new or just spinoffs, or really stupid patents.
If I write some damn awesome software, or invent something really unique and new, why should I not profit from it? Without intellectual propery laws, it would be an interesting world, where secret societies and guilds of tradesmen kept their secrets quiet to protect their intellectual property. Where they would kill to keep it safe. Sound familiar? Just remember, those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. We need intellectual property laws. We also need a responisble patent office, too. We don't have one yet.
So, on to the infective aspect of the GPL:
Say I am writing SuperProgram2000, and I need a blinkenLights() function for it. I want my software to be propriety, because I want to make money off of it.
I notice that someone else has a GPLed program out there with a damn nice blinkenLights() that is perfect for my application. I have a few choices here:
1. I can write my own blinkenLights(), but it's big and complex, and could add months to my development time, and it's already been done anyway.
2. I can steal the other guy's blinkenLights() and face possible legal issues were it discovered.
3. I can use the other guy's blinkenLights() and give him credit, and be forced to place my entire program under the GPL, and lose my profit. THIS IS INFECTIVE.
4. I can ask him to license blinkenLights() to me under a different license, either for free, for royalty, or for flat-fee. But what could happen?
Suppose someone notices that the blinkenLights() in my code look a lot like the blinkenLights() in a nifty GPL program. He tells the FSF. The FSF sues me. Suppose they don't accept the fact that I licensed blinkenLights() from the original author, because the code exists as GPL in the rest of the world. I'd have to fight a legal battle and it would cost me time. I'd probably win, but it would still cost me time.
So, I am not sure if the GPL and the FSF can be trusted. And the GPL is definitely against intellectual property, which is a big part of capitalism nowadays.
For the record, RMS is probably anti capitalist for that reason, and maybe leans socialist, but he's no communist like the article said. RMS is doing good work, but is the motivation out of altruism, or is it to further a political view?
He may say it's altruism, and makes software free in a "free speech" sense, but I could also say the Sun is blue, and you would really have no way of knowing what color I see the sun as.
Guess that's all my $.02.
Best of both worlds? (Score:2)
I would like to see an 'Author's Licence', where the freedoms of both the author and user of software are taken into account. People must be able to have access to source code to be able to make changes, etc., but people shouldn't be allowed to fork code maliciously. I think the distribution of software should be absolutely free (both senses of the word), but redistribution should be limited to patches/etc., which extends the original program. The author of the software must be supported primarily. Now, this also causes problems (software no longer under development, for example), but I myself would much rather release software under an 'author' system. I believe the most important people are the authors and the users of their software - clingers, forkers and thieves need not apply