Linked by Gabe Yoder on Tue 11th Nov 2003 21:51 UTC
FreeBSD We've all heard the age old argument second only to the vi vs. emacs religious wars: FreeBSD Vs Linux. As a long time linux user, I decided that is was time I spent some time on the other side of the fence to see if it was any greener. Oh, and by the way, vi rules.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: WTF???
by mumic on Thu 13th Nov 2003 14:10 UTC

First you say you want to use FreeBSD only if it is GPL free. Ok I can respect that. Not everyone likes the GPL. Now you are talking about having your code stolen and getting nothing.

Sorry that my point is not clear to you. My point is that without using the GPL software I can choose to release the source code or not. If GPL is used you can't make that choice (by FSF design, I'll remind you) - the choice is already made for you by the FSF.

I don't care about getting paid in most circumstances - the software I write is Freeware. But if I use GPL and people (yes, including companies) like it I'd have crazies all over demanding the source. And when a deep-pocketed company comes along and gets the source they have resources to reimplement it with different tools and release it under BSD (for example) - they've duplicated my efforts and _don't_ have to release the source. My initial efforts don't even get a "nod". (BTW: this is a scenario not really "thought-through" by the FSF and will IMO get more common with the entrance of the IBMs into the "free" software world.)

The GPL has been called "restrictively unrestrictive" (forgive me, I can't find the source just now - which is why I took so long to respond). I happen to agree. RMS goes on about a "protecting the developers". Well and good. But his license IMO only does that for unpopular products :-). Which is why IMO that the popular ones opt for Mozilla or some other licensing.

If you think this is a "bogus" argument, that's fine with me.