OSNews

Noone including him self knows what he's yapping about. He has a problem with the bsd's and really likes to rant about them every chance he gets. The funny part is that you if ask him about sources for his claims he failes to deliever.

Well............... X.org is certainly one example. The number one reason why more permissive licenses like MIT, BSD or even the LGPL tend to be used is because of linking to proprietary software. There really isn't any other reason you can come up with. People are certainly free to do that, but the net effect is that developers using your code tend to go off and write their own code somewhere else that could be used to move the project much further forwards. Would we really have the number of drivers we do in the Linux kernel without the GPL?

All you have to do is look around at various 'open source' projects, look at their main licenses and look at how much code is going into them. GPLed projects tend to have quite a bit more code going into them versus their more liberally licensed counterparts, and they, like X.org, are tending to struggle to attract code contributions and long-term contributors. It's a snowball effect.

Yes , with the result that less people contribute , develop , fund it compared to similar in importance newer GPL projects. Same thing can be said of all the entire BSD/MIT. The code is being used do , but inside proprietary closed code inside commercial , but non-inclusives , non sharing , non contributing back , projects.



Of course you don't , you see a complaint where none exist.

The minority of thieve and corrupt never undertsand why there actions are seen as bad by the majority they prey upon since they are profiting from it , it must be good , there is never any problem according to them.

*** There is nothing wrong with the Free Software Foundation celebrating making open source licensing. ***

*** There is nothing wronmg with banker and banks who are closing or asking for baillouts because they fraudulantly spent other's people money ***

*** There is no problem with milk producer who distribute poisonned milk into there products , other people childrens dying is not a problem ***

According to you it's illogical to at minimum ask that the Free Software Foundation create solution that are really Free Software that stay Free software in both original and derivatives and there derivative of derivatives.

It's not you , it's me who's obviously the problem , I have this old idea that used to work that Free Sofware was suppose to make Free Software and the FSF support Free Software. Guess I need to adapt to new realities.

Edited 2009-01-08 14:47 UTC

I wouldn't use an allquantified expression ("all") here because this sentence can be proven wrong with only one counter-example. :-)

But in principle you're right. The BSD-type licenses are often criticised to be "rape me licenses". This can be seen as theft when, for example, a vendor takes BSD licensed code, fiddles with it a while, and then sells it in his procucts. But that's another kind of freedom, if I may see it that way: The freedom to re-use the code in *any* way that's imaginable. Another completely valid point of view is that it may not be acceptable to "unfree" free software, that there has to be a restriction in what you may do with the code in order to protect its freedom.



Depends on the definition...

Man, that was downright offensive.

Even if everything you said was true, you are comparing using a free software project without contributing back to killing children. I knew free software nuts got zealous sometimes, but that is just twisted.

Perish the thought! I can't imagine how anyone would get the idea that you aren't terribly well-acquainted with reality.

...

On a totally unrelated topic, please tell us more about how using the BSD license is comparable to killing children.