"We're now more than a decade later than the moment when I judged the open source to have gained a decisive momentum - 1996-1997, when Slackware was the reference, Red Hat was 'the other choice', KDE and GNOME were just emerging, Walnut Creek was selling CD-ROMs, and SunSITE mirrors were the home of most of the relevant software. The worst thing that happened was that Yggdrasil Linux died. But the Earth kept spinning..." Read the rest of the editorial at TheJemReport.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-10
GPL believes people are dishonest and there is a need of a license to legally force people to accept GPL terms.
Commercial license believes people are dishonest and there is a need of a license to legally force people to accpet their terms.
hmm which one is better..none...ignore the license and select the better product.
Which one is best? The one that promotes survival of the fittest i.e. BSD.
The motto of BSD is:
We love programming and it is our passion. We write code and we make it public domain. If you can do better then feel free to take it and do what you want to do with it. In the end better will survive.
Ahh BSD world is so much more pure and honest.
PS: I wish GPL never existed. It is really a cancer to the spirit of open source.
Member since:2006-02-01
Member since:2005-10-02
Eeehh.. Microsoft anyone? IBM? Most other large corporations? Politicians? Dishonest people are about a lot, as well as honest people. The GPL is protective because of life experiences. The BSD is unprotective despite life experiences. Two related yet different philosophies. And there is room for both of them.
The BSD isn't different in that regard. All licenses must be followed, including the BSD license
- so that argument is void of any meaning. Besides that. The GPL IS a commercial license. What you meant was properly "proprietary" or "vlosed" license.
BSD is not public domain. Treating BSD as public domain would result in an outcry from the BSD-camp. That has happened before.
BSD is: Take this and do what you want. Just give us some credit.
GPL is: Take this and do what you want. But remember that this goes for everybody. Fair and square.
Leechers don't like GPL. Some leechers don't even like BSD (think SCO).
GPL is not a cancer. It is a license based on the principles of freedom. We are all free to do what we want as long as we don't restrict the freedom of others. The only restriction in GPL is that you cannot restrict other persons. It is a basic element in (individualistic) anarchism, democracy and other freedom oriented movements. The GPL is exactly about that. Freedom.
You may consider freedom to be a cancer. Feel free to do so
Member since:2006-01-01
/*The motto of BSD is:
We love programming and it is our passion. We write code and we make it public domain. If you can do better then feel free to take it and do what you want to do with it. In the end better will survive. */
The Motto of BSD really is:
We love programming and it is our passion. We write code and we make it public domain,so, the corporations can make billions off our code even though we never get
anything in return from them.
Member since:2006-06-22
Heres an article its well-worth reading:
http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd
GPL, BSD, and NetBSD - why the GPL rocketed Linux to success.
Heres are snippets that basically provide the gist of the article:
In contrast, the GPL has enforced a consortia-like arrangement on any major commercial companies that want to use it. Red Hat, Novell, IBM, and many others are all contributing as a result, and they feel safe in doing so because the others are legally required to do the same. Just look at the domain names on the Linux kernel mailing list - big companies, actively paying for people to contribute. In July 2004, Andrew Morton addressed a forum held by U.S. Senators, and reported that most Linux kernel code was generated by corporate programmers (37,000 of the last 38,000 changes were contributed by those paid by companies to do so; see my report on OSS/FS numbers for more information). BSD license advocates claim that the BSD is more "business friendly", but if you look at actual practice, that argument doesn't wash. The GPL has created a "safe" zone of cooperation among companies, without anyone having to sign complicated legal documents. A company can't feel safe contributing code to the BSDs, because its competitors might simply copy the code without reciprocating. There's much more corporate cooperation in the GPL'ed kernel code than with the BSD'd kernel code. Which means that in practice, it's actually been the GPL that's most "business-friendly".
Yes, companies could voluntarily cooperate without a license forcing them to. The *BSDs try to depend on this. But in today's cutthroat market, that's more like the "Prisoner's Dilemma". In the dilemma, it's better to cooperate; but since the other guy might choose to not cooperate, and exploit your naivete, you may choose to not cooperate. A way out of this dilemma is to create a situation where you must cooperate, and the GPL does that.
Edited 2007-04-17 02:15
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:
2006-11-26
The GPL and BSD have different intentions. The intention of the GPL is that free software will stay free for the user (free as defined by the Free software foundation). The intent of the BSD licence is that everybody should have access to the code.
The GPL was designed by RMS because he felt ethically challenged if he allowed recipients of his works to subjugate other recipients. The BSD developers do not mind that their software be used to subjugate other people - all they care about is letting people have access to the code.
tl;dr
GPL is for code to be used in "free software"
BSD is free code to be used in software.