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.
by Ronald on Thu 13th Nov 2003 23:35 UTC

It is not only Microsoft who don't like it. You may not _use_ other's GPL licensed code at all without releasing your extensions as GPL. Lots of people and companies don't intend to use GPL-licensed code because IP is impossible by extending that licensed code. They _do_ however have the source (again, thanks to the GPL). This is my original point - that the code can be copied and modified because control of the source code has been lost.

It's this bit I was afraid of reading and tadaaa there it is. It's all about disrespecting copyright and licensing terms, just because the big buck is beckoning. The control of the source code is absolutely NOT[/] lost.

The GPL governs your rights under which you can use this code and only the GPL. That is the right of the copyright owners to impose upon you. Using that code in any other way than the license allows is just pure IP theft.

But I get the problem. There is a lot of quality code out there that could be used by companies (or the individual) to squeeze the big buck out of if it weren't for that pesky little GPL. Guess what, noone has the right to tell someone under what conditions he can or cannot use or license his own property. The other way around is very damn well the right any owner of property has.

It's always the greedy ones that moan about the GPL. Good quality code. We want our grubby little paws on it, but we can't, because we would be up in court for copyright infringement.

It seems you know the GPL very well (I was afraid you'd know the GPL), if you'd been ignorant about it your writings would have been excusable.

But it seems you do not agree with the legal means of a group of people to protect their intelectual property in such a way that it is used like they see fit. You are against the GPL because it bars people from leveraging others work for ones own benefit /financial gain without compensating the owners of the work (by equally giving code).

The GPL does not destroy IP. If you do not use this license, you are not bound by it. If you illegally use GPLed code and hope to get away with it for financial or other gains, it is nothing but justice if you feel the teeth of the GPL.

the code can be copied and modified because control of the source code has been lost

This is not the case with the BSD license? Or is it ok in this case because it has almost no legal implications? One warning though, don't strip the copyright notices. AT&T can tell you that is not a very wise thing to do...

As a side note. I feel a certain amount of pity for you, since current trends seem to indicate that the GPLed pool of software will grow significantly in the future, which will unintentionally make your world smaller.