Recently, during FISL (Fórum Internacional de Software Livre), in Brazil, Eric Raymond defended open source model of development and quoted: “Basically, we don’t need GPL. It’s based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. With it, we continue injuring ourselves, cutting ourselves from the economic benefits of BSD license“.
Eric Raymond talks about GPL and BSD licenses
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I really don’t understand why people can’t grasp this concept. The GPL is the ONLY reason why Linux won’t be destroyed by MSFT, Apple, Sun, IBM, or any other number of companies. With Linux people and companies are even. No one can be ahead of the others. Compatibility is nearly always there. What killed the unixes the first time around? each vendor had their own. With the BSD license every one can say they have a linux yet none of those would need to be even binary compatible.
The BSD license is for those who just want a license that is just like Public Domain. The one and only difference is a simple requirement is to acknowledge that you used BSD software to begin with.
Sorry The GPL is a license. It’s designed to make sure that no one can take advantage of someone else’s work without at least showing how they did so.(if they redistrubte software, which is the whole point)
I disagree pretty strongly with that statement. How exactly does the GPL injure free software?
It protects it, by preventing companies from ripping off free software. One could argue that the BSD license encourages companies to use free software when they wouldn’t with the GPL, but frankly who cares? If some piece of software is based on free software, that’s not a particularly good feature if it’s not free itself. In fact it generally sets my teeth on edge if they’re selling a product which is based on the work of others who gave their work for free.
Apparently being a philosopher, a religious reformer, or an ethical conformist is not in these days. Today, it’s all about the benjamins. I’m a little disappointed with his stance myself.
>Apparently being a philosopher, a religious reformer, or an ethical conformist is not in these days.
And you are one of these only if you pay lip service to the GPL?
I prefer BSD because it is about true freedom, not the one-sided freedom of GPL.
GPL approach is that if i can’t earn from my software, i will make sure no one else can. Good growth of a discipline needs industrial backing. With BSD this model was really working. GPL is breaking it. You have the proof, tell me how many companies are making money from GPL code so far? Daily we see Linux distributions die and new come up but finally people give up because they can’t make money out of it. Redhat tries to make money and someone makes whitebox etc to kill their business.
Do you understand that programmers need money and no support business is not enough and neither is services business. It is like saying the car manufacturers will give car for free and then charge only for repair. What if i never go back to that company for repair which gave me free car?
GPL is breaking the whole eco-system if you don’t understand what i mean look below:
universities——>research-
^ |
| |
| |
| |
Money<———–Industry
If there is no strong industry, where will student do internship, who will sponsor for research.
You agree or not, GPL kills way more business than it creates….I used to like GPL but gave up on it about 2 years back because i realized that its like shooting my own foot.
The GPL is the ONLY reason why Linux won’t be destroyed by MSFT, Apple, Sun, IBM, or any other number of companies.
Totally wrong. Did Apache get “destroyed”? Did FreeBSD?
In case you have doubts, Here are some numbers about the market share of these two projects (and it’s quite a big market share).
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10788&limit=no#385200
I’m sorry, even if a lot of good software is currently distributed under the GPL, that license makes sense only for politics (i.e., for an anti-proprietary crusade). For what concerns software development, it’s pretty much useless: the strength of Open Source is found in its purest form in the BSD and the other academic licenses.
I want to report what Wes Peters, a FreeBSD core, said in a comment on a BSD news site – I quote it because IMHO it illustrates the *best* of the advantages that the BSD license offers.
“The great aspect of licenses like BSD, Apache, and MIT/X/Athena is that all users benefit from the software, not just the technologists. Truly open licenses are better than the GPL because they give more code to more people.”
http://bsdnews.com/view_story.php3?story_id=5039
“based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected”
I thought it was based on the belief that people were greedy and that protection was needed to make sure that everyone shares and by being a community of shareing people we accomplish more!
did he really say that??? someone needs to smack him with the penguin
Do you have any clue what you are talking about? BSD is way more free. Think if china wants to develop some secret OS for their army which source code can they take?
And also the diagram on my post above got screwed due to HTML spaces. By ecosystem i meant:
university->research->industry->money->donation->univer sity
And GPL breaks it totally by prohibiting industry from using research.
If the BSD license has the freedom to deny others their freedom, then I’ll stick to the GPL thanks.
>>Fight for freedom and fight against GNU nazis<<
>> Don’t let the communists dictate your lives, whether in Brazil or Venezeula. Always fight them to the death. <<
you need a relaity check !!! It is apparent from your post, that you do not have a clue … calling GPL advocators Nazis and Communists at the same time … oh dear.
Anyway … the GPL does make sense, it hinders big cooperations to rip of the work of the community or an individual. The whole idea of Free software is that it stays Free and that everybody can benefit from it now and in the future, sth. that f.e. a BSD license can not guarantee. Anyway, the whole argument is futile, it is up to the developers which lisence they deem fit for their application.
I prefer BSD because it is about true freedom, not the one-sided freedom of GPL.
Who’s Freedom? BSD grants a lot of freedom to developers not related to a project in that they can come on by and take that code and do whatever they please with it.
On the other hand, the GPL is about freedom for the software. The license protects the software from being extended with proprietary licenses. The license protects the developers from having their whole project snatched up by a company, forked, and no code changes returned. The GPL protects the users by garaunteing that any other forked code base of the software must give back changes, so the user knows that if their code base wishes to keep in synx with another code bases security patches or features, they can do that easily.
I’ve read ESR’s views in the catherdral and the bazaar and this statement seems totally off base. In the book I believe he mentioned that he helped Netscape design the MPL, which is essentially the GPL with an exception for Netscape. I very much understand why netscape wouldn’t have wanted a BSD license on their code. Microsoft could have picked it right up, forked it off to be totally non web compliant with anything but microsoft tech and just bundled it with the OS. and he obviously had a reason before as well.
It seems like all the visionarys that once said some really smart things always seem to come back and say 20 other things that makes you wonder if they are just trying to see how far they can stick their own foot in their mouth. I think this is a prime example.
“they give more code to more people.”
that should be
they give more code to more money hungry corporations who may or may not choose to give anything back! Sorry I havent seen M$ contribute to BSD very much, in fact I doubt the board of directors for cisco has bothered donating anything back that way either…
Raymond reveals himself being an shortsighted idiot, who only considers the economic side of free licences, and choses to ignore the ideology, the driving force behind most free software projects.
The only “economic benefit” of the BSD is the possibility of making free software non free, and thus a betrayal on free software community and sharing principles. The BSD gives _no_ incentive to non-community developers to improve something, and give it back. Especially most companies would rather go bankrupt than give out code they are to legally required to.
Its dissappointing that he came to the (wrong) conclusion that free software world has nothing to offer and can not convince quality wise, and has to “sell out” to “finally” gain some company acceptance. Perens, what a cheapo.
Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
Did you try to read my post? You confuse absolute power with true freedom. If you free software but leave the doors open for making it closed, why do you think it’s “true” freedom since it can be taken away whenever someone pleases?
BSD is way more free. Think if china wants to develop some secret OS for their army which source code can they take?
GPL, since the code wouldn’t get out of the army they are not required to show the source.
university->research->industry->money->donation->univer sity
And GPL breaks it totally by prohibiting industry from using research.
Huh? Since when? With companies like IBM, Novell, Sun or Mandriva employing people for work on GPL projects, I wonder how you still have that weird misconception.
>>Do you have any clue what you are talking about? BSD is way more free. Think if china wants to develop some secret OS for their army which source code can they take? <<
Well assuming that China would actually care about licensing for a secret OS (which they wouldn’t) … but if they did they would use BSD of course as it allows them to use the work others have created and ‘close’ is.
>>And GPL breaks it totally by prohibiting industry from using research. <<<
No it doesn’t prohibt industry at all … it simply makes sure that they will give back, and if you look at big cooperations (IBM, Nokia) it actually seems to work.
As expected, after another lightweight analysis from ESR, we get the unjustified references to communism, Bush-style redefinitions of freedom, and perverse analogies to slavery from the Godwin-invoking peanut gallery. (Six comments to invoke Godwin’s Law could well be an OSNews record.)
But while “economic benefits” might help ESR sound all legitimate in front of the “business community”, that very community seems fairly happy to lobby for software patents in just about every major jurisdiction whilst freeloading off the open source community. Unlike BSD licensing, the GNU licences at least help to keep businesses honest with respect to whose work they use and how they publish it – and yes, the end-users benefit as well as the technologists from all this.
Exactly !
@Wolf, Where does it say in the GPL that you cant earn money from your works? All it says that if someone asks for the sourcecode, you must make it available.Plus RH makes money off of its subcriptions, a fortune fivehundred company is probably not going to use Whitebox, what if somthing goes wrong who do you communicate with?
@Ulib, If all software was released under the BSDL we would have the same thing that happend with the splitting of the Unix’s, I’m sure way more projects get released under the GPL, if companies cant make mony off the GPL why are there so many backing Linux and its software, how many are backing BSD, I’m serious, I really want to know because I’m curious.
Why hasnt IBM or Novell and what not see the benefits of the BSDL? Because they know it works to a certain degree.
@Fozzie, well your just weird, I dont see how you can compare any open source system to communism, but ok, has it ever occured to you that somtimes communism is needed? Look at Russia a power house while it was the Soviet Union, now with its “Freedom” its in shambles, Look at China, they may be communists but now their our allies and their economy is doing great.
I agree that the BSDL is a good licese in a perfect world but its not a perfect world and we know that companies will abuse software, with the GPL companies have been opening their software, pouring source into the community, and the GPL makes sure that they give somthing back instead of just taking.You dont really hear about companies backing BSD? (Like I said I could be wrong, looking for examples) infact you really dont hear a lot about the BSD’s much.You really think MS gave two damns about Open Source when it took the BSD code? not really it was more like, hey theres some code that we can take and make it ours and all we have to do is acknowlege them in some obscure place, brilliant!
WTF are you talking about, somtimes you need restrictions even if you are free, we need rules like not killing people, imagine if you were stainding in line at a supermarket and someone was tired of waiting, according to you they could just kill you and there would be nothing wrong with it, in fact by your reasoning all criminals are innocent.
The apache license was based more off of the GPL than BSD.
Remember!
BSD = sharing is not theft,
GPL = not sharing is theft,
MS EULA = sharing is theft.
The apache license tries to clean up parts of the GPL that some people don’t quite like. Namely the linking of various libraries, and their effects on derivatives.
But without the GPL (which some 60-70% of all F/OSS software is based) NONE of the other licenses would of been created and the BSD’s would be even less well known. Interest in Linux is fueling interest in other forms of Free software. Why? Simple people like choice, but only a 100% freedom solution will survive. BSD’s aren’t 100% freedom, because MSFT can take and corrupt your work redistribute it under a slightly different name and destroy you with it.
Now to the person who said you can’t sell GPL software, I suggest you go read the GPL. You can sell GPL software, as long as the source code is available to all those parties to whom you distribute said software. They are allowed to give away your software for free so it doesn’t make sense, but you can try it. Xandros, Red Hat, Lycoris, Wind river, all derive reveune from GPL software.
>The apache license was based more off of the GPL than BSD.
This is completely wrong – just like before, btw.
I’d ask you, *please*, to get a clue before posting comments again: you really would do everybody a big favor.
Both licenses are fine. Both give something away, it’s a gift, one with more restrictions than the other. Let the author decide what he prefers.
One of the things the GPL may have helped with is to take away the fear of corporate contributors that their contributions would help their competitors more than it would help themselves. At least that is why I think IBM is comfortable with contributing to the linux kernel.
This of course only works for companies whose income is not primarily dependend on the sale of a software product.
PS
I would be happy if I never saw another comparison with capitalism, communism, fascism or nazism in relation to computer code again, but I guess that is wishful thinking…
PPS
…not to mention car analogies, but that is too far off-topic.
PPPS
Who cares much about the opinions of ESR or RMS anyway. Just listen to their arguments and make up your own mind.
Actually he is correct, I watched a movie recently called Revolution OS, it spoke about Linux and the GPL, the Apache guys were on there talking about how they took from the GPL.
Your little diagram would be fine and good, except universities by and large don’t use the GPL. The GPL is used by entities attempted to replace the “corporation” part of the diagram, not the “university” part of the diagram.
GPL is better only for those companies whose core activity is *not* software production (IBM, HP, etc), because it makes them compete more efficiently with companies whose core activity *is* software production (Microsoft, Apple, etc).
Apple chose BSD.
p.s. this is actually a copy and paste from a previous comment of mine
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10788&offset=15&rows=30#3…
I’m against duplication of efforts, when possible.
It’s not because free software is having success that we can drop our successformula.
@Fozzie: You are really showing a lot of democratic sense ” screw GPL. And do your part and just steal GPL like I and others do. The FSF has no power to stop me in taking source. They are weak.”
Please realise that the authors have chosen to publish there sources as GPL. You are taking other peoples freedom by violating the licence they have chosen.
People like these show very clearly that we do need something to protect and we might need even more protection. At least we have something to protect us when people like these try to rip off the movement.
BSD licences are just good for some specific corporate purposes, they use it as a “development model”, not for freedom. Freedom is about people not about corporate intrests. Freedom needs a tool to protect it because oppressors won’t hesitate to use there tools to destroy freedom in order to make more money.
I actually think this brings it to the point:
> BSD = sharing is not theft,
> GPL = not sharing is theft.
Decide what you want, but neither you nor anyone else will be able to convert a BSD-believer to a GPL-ian or vice versa, because since you are allowed to decide yourself, everyone else is allowed too.
All of you fanboys: I think you have to live with two happily co-existing free licenses. I don’t really care what you prefer, as long as it’s free.
P.S.: Every comparison stinks, and comparing software licenses to car selling is problematic. But comparing any of the mentioned to totalitarian regimes (and implicitly either the users or the developers to the victims of those regimes) is simply shortsighted, uninformed and dumb. Doing so disqualifies every correct thing you might have said otherwise, so just don’t.
I think you hit the nail on the thumb.
The two styles of license target different audiences.
The market, in my opinion, is enhanced by the two communities, not damaged.
LOL, I agree somtimes Stallman takes things a little to far, even for his own sake, by reading your post it would seem that both communities complement each other, I really dont have anything against the BSDL, I think its a good License, I just prefere the GPL, to each his own, the one thing I think all Open Source Communities should stand against, is Software Patents.
So I guess, I would have to say that each lisence has its place. There shouldnt be any animosity between those that choose the BSDL and the GPL, I think this was shown when Linus was talking to the BSD Dev’s and was given a pair of devil ears and he chose to wear them through his speech. The open source community, no matter what the license, should be working together, not against eachother, just my thoughts.
Pollo Loco (IP: —.se.biz.rr.com) wrote:
Actually he is correct, I watched a movie recently called Revolution OS, it spoke about Linux and the GPL, the Apache guys were on there talking about how they took from the GPL.
No, he’s wrong.
He said that the Apache license “was based more off of the GPL than BSD”. This is *completely* wrong.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
The rights granted by the Apache license (both the old one and the new one http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php ) are, for all practical purposes, *equivalent* to the rights granted by the BSD license, and they’re *very* different from the GPL – i.e., the Apache license is no “copyleft”, it’s just credits.
Everybody with a clue knows that. Get informed before posting, it’s not that hard.
The bsd license is comparable to community service. You provide something for the benefit of society.
The GPL also takes the economic value into account.
Nothing wrong with either license.
If you’re using the GPL license you _have_ to make any derivative work also GPL. This enforces Free Software. BSD encourages Free Software to be used by other people who don’t even think about creating Free Software. It encourages commercial applications.
I’m sorry for the harsh tone of my previous post, I also think that it’s better when there’s no animosity among Free/Open Source users/developers.
Simply, let’s avoid saying things that are completely false. That would help the discussion a lot, by making it nicer and more interesting.
I donno, maybe your right, I’m going to have to watch the movie again.
Heres a Link if anyone wants to check it out.
http://www.revolution-os.com/
http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/nonfiction/5dd5/
i will not talk about philosophy. A real situation. Many “Project” based companies simply cannot use GPL software in their projects. Especially government projects. This is because
a- company has a closed source policy.
b- client does not want project to be open sourced.
This is very very common. So, what they do? Use commercial, or Apache BSD like licenses in the project. Expecting to change minds of those companies is wishful thinking. In our recent project we used nearly 30 open source libraries, none was GPL.
What OS projects gain from it? i believe most obvious one is popularity. if people starts using your os library more and more it makes you powerful, and you can later sell service or put it in your resume to enter a good job. Sadly, truth is this i believe.
A lot of GPLers think you can close BSD code. You can’t.
You can the derivarive works, but the original code is still BSD licensed and will allways be free and available for open as well as closed source derivative works. Companies that base their code on yours can’t force the original project to shutdown.
Well, they can, but by the same means they use over GPLed code: patents. Those are the real enemy, and no current GPL or BSD license can get you rid of this.
BSD and GPL are equally weak against patents, but GPL force companies to fight back with patents – if they can’t use your code on a closed product, they you can’t code it.
BSD is more friendly in this aspect, and it’s easier to create free alternatives to compete with closed products if those closed products were based in the same source.
So, in my perspective, BSD enforces competition and GPL enforces hostility towards proprietary software. Both are weak against patents, but the GPL hostility ends up enforcing patent growth more than BSD.
Bruno
AMEN! I have been saying for years that the GPL license is so restrictive of freedom that it should be avoided. BSD offers true freedom, like freedom, it can be abused, but even so it is the best way to go.
I think people who love the restrictive goals of GPL should stick with it, but I wouls encourage everyone who is interested in freedom to start using a BSD or MIT license.
Having seen both private and public sector projects involving a “client” – ie. someone paying for code to be produced and not just consuming shrinkwrapped products – the only reasons why the client won’t accept GPL’d code, aside from ignorance-induced “fear” of what the GPL is, are that the company and client like to play fast and loose with software licences (ie. throw the code into the box and as long as you never have to show the code, you don’t have to think about the licensing as long as it’s all free-as-in-beer), or that the client wants to sell the solution on without providing source.
The fast and loose approach might be endemic in the industry, but it isn’t a good excuse. Meanwhile, if you’re providing a solution that your client wants to resell, I’d suggest that everyone re-evaluates their business relationships – why should your client get the source but not their clients? I wouldn’t commission software and be happy with just having binaries dropped off at the end of the project.
With BSD you can close derivative works, but the original code is still free. The only way to attack the original code is with patents, and GPL can’t fight patents either.
GPL is hostile against proprietary reuse and they fight back with patents because they fear the growth of software they can’t use under their terms.
BSD offers no hostility, just needs credit to be given. If not attacked by patents, it’s easier to provide free alternatives to closed derivatives based on the same code than to do it from scratch.
Bruno
BSDL offers no freedom. It just offers source code.
GPL can offer freedom because it has a goal that goes further than just distributing some source code. It is socially engaged.
“but only a 100% freedom solution will survive. BSD’s aren’t 100% freedom, because MSFT can take and corrupt your work redistribute it under a slightly different name and destroy you with it. ”
They can take any code with any license and redistribute it without releasing the code. It just depends on how smart they can modify and hide the code they stole.
“They can take any code with any license and redistribute it without releasing the code. It just depends on how smart they can modify and hide the code they stole.”
There is still a differnce between looking at the architecture to rewrite the code and copying the code. MS would never risk to use the GPL code in Windows but they do use BSD code without contributing back. There is little signs to suspect that mayor players use GPL code en masse without opensourcing. I think this is something that happens more in small companies that do mainly custom development and don’t have to distribute there source according to the GPL.
….if your super-duper GPL can save you from patents.
Bruno
Star Office was freeware for years. It was available to all and had many of the features of MS Office. Why didn’t it succeed. because it was Closed.
Forward ahead Star Office is now a completely closed project, but it had a derivative made. Open Office is now challenging MS Office. Star office has just enough income to offset costs. Open Office has thousands of downloads with lot’s of people eagerly awaiting the next one.
What’s the differnce between Star office and Open office? The GPL.
There are literaly dozens upon dozens of once closed or BSD like licensed projects switching to the GPL and suddenly becoming useful and are nder constant upgrades.
That is why the GPL is better than BSD. With GPL software it and it’s childern will always be free. With BSD’s only the original software is free. The rest might be free if your lucky.
The GPL crowd makes a big deal about freedom, yet their license takes freedom away more than any other. ***Like them***, I want the freedom to say how stuff I write is used: if I use GPL software, I must accept their terms (which they have every right to set) AND also apply them to my own work, meaning that I give up my freedom. I don’t appreciate being called “unethical” by these guys.
Dual licensing isn’t enough: a LOT of (GPL) software depends on other (GPL) software, meaning that everyone all the way back up the chain would have to agree in order to use a different license. Good luck!
A regular commercial license usually only takes away my freedom to distribute others’ source code to people who haven’t paid for it (which is their right.) Once I pay, though, I’m free to charge, modify, open my own source, or generally do whatever else I want that that doesn’t take away their rights under their chosen license. Given the choice (and funds), I almost always prefer to pay for a commercial source code license rather than use free GPL code; at the very least, I make sure I have the option.
I can deal with the LGPL, since it really only requires that changes I make (to code I didn’t originally write) be opened: that’s not unreasonable, and within the license holders’ rights. I like the BSD license because it takes away the least amount of freedom: effectively, my changes are my work.
I wonder how many big companies (ones the US government can’t seem to hold to their laws) are truly stopped by the GPL from pirating OSS. It’s pretty easy to hire an outside contractor, hide/endlessly dispute the facts, and count on the cost of the legal system stopping most challenges. Even if they “roll their own”, the GPL helps such companies by putting a huge amount of code “off limits” to more ethical (read smaller and more vulnerable) competitors. Most GPL true believers tend to stick with projects that aren’t much threat in the commercial market.
The GPL is a nice idea, and it would be fun to live in a world where RMS “won” (provided I didn’t have to work at 7-11 for a living: I don’t have a nonprofit foundation or much call for speaking engagements.) However, we don’t (and probably won’t ever, unless we go through a Mad Max period first) live in such a world, and I choose to come to terms with the one I do live in.
freedom unprotected is freedom lost…
but still, going all militant about it does not help either…
Personally I would tend to the MIT/X license or the 2 clause BSD license for new software, but I would still prefer the GPL/LGPL to the dozens of variations of the MPL and the hundreds of YAOSL (yet another open source license) that ESR and the OSI have cursed us with.
Eric is silly as ever… If he wants companies to use free workers with nothing giving back, then he should be the first in queue. There is a lot of evidence, that many companies incorporated BSD-licensed code into proprietary software, with nothing giving back to the author and/or open source communities (either financially or in the form of a sw product).
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License the GPL does protect those receiving GPL’d works from any patents held by the distributor on concepts employed by those works. So yes, the GPL can save you from patents. Presumably, Nokia decided to spin (ie. generate publicity from) their recent patent-granting “generosity” precisely because they can’t start suing their customers over patents that may apply to Linux – doing so would violate the GPL and open them up to copyright/licence infringement lawsuits.
P.S. If you really do live in Portugal, perhaps you might consider contacting your MEPs if software patents concern you. A few letters might seem like nothing, but it could make a difference if enough people tell their legislators what they think about the issue.
If you were an individual who wanted to start a software company based around a project you really liked what license would you choose?
The company is your sole source of income, as you will quit your job to found it and spend all your time on it.
The ONLY reason why IBM and co can contribute to Linux is the GPL. Because the GPL is the warranty for IBM and all the other donating corporations that no competitor can take their code and cook it’s own closed source soup with it.
So the GPL actually ENCOURAGES companies to collaborate in areas that are not their core business. This is also the reason why Microsoft CANNOT contribute to Linux, because Linux directly points towards their core business (Opsys and Office).
Despite the fact that I’m always sick of ESR in his moronic way of attacking FS, it always seems this way that some (And I really mean just a few and not all of them!) BSD zealots are completely retards. This communist thingy should be over long time ago. RMS could be a communist by the econimical scale but he’s in liberative side by the authorative axis and that’s just like a sort of anarchism freak which is not anything near lennism.
“The ONLY reason why IBM and co can contribute to Linux is the GPL. Because the GPL is the warranty for IBM and all the other donating corporations that no competitor can take their code and cook it’s own closed source soup with it.
”
IBM sells servers (hardware) and support (contracts.) The software is irrelevant. If OSX was free as in distribution costs, I’m sure they’d sell that.
what do i see here? a whole bunch of flaming idiots. flaming for nothing.
i imagine the ideal rms world: everybody uses gpl’ed software. who is going to develop it then? no one will want to study software engineering, because it doesnt warant you any income. wtf?
imho bsdl software should be used to set industry standards. and proprietary software should follow them by deriving or reimplementing or whatever. this way you can choose to use free and open source software or pay for enhanced or just supported version of it. this would also encourage comptetition, unlike gpl. and we all know that competition is good.
crap, i just spent 10 minutes contributing to useless flame thread. wtf? :]
If you’re using the GPL license you _have_ to make any derivative work also GPL. This enforces Free Software. BSD encourages Free Software to be used by other people who don’t even think about creating Free Software. It encourages commercial applications.
Bingo. I have a very different take on the entire Kerberos issue. I remember when Kerberos was first developed when you had huge networked environments with people using unsecured logins for FTP and Telnet. Neither Linux or the Open Source BSDs existed at that time, and GNU was just gcc, emacs, and a slightly improved grep (with some other things as well, but not much else,) and the GPL non-existent. MIT-Licensed Kerberos enabled software from different vendors to engage in secure authentication.
Now one can argue that the MIT reference implementation enabled Microsoft to fork Kerberos in ways that were incompatible with other implementations. However, compatibility was never in Microsoft’s best interests, and a GPL reference implementation would have just meant an entirely closed authentication system.
The goals of the GPL and the BSD license are different, they serve different purposes. One is not better than the other, since they aren’t in competition with each other (at least intrinsically). The GPL wants to promote collaborative work, the BSD just wants to hand out the code and let others work on it and keep the changes for themselves. The GPL is more popular (judging by the ratio of GPL to BSD code and projects) because the idea of collaboration and sharing is more popular.
Once upon a time there were two friends. They both had
their own forest they let other people use and that they
wanted to expand. BSDL let everyone chop down a tree and
take it with him. GPL did the same thing but also required
that if you chopped down a tree and made something of it,
you should replant it. Both were happy about their situation
but BSDL had to work much harder because it had to plant
all the trees by it self. Both forrests grew by time and GPLs
forrest got a bit larger than BSDLs. The two friends didn’t
mind this, and kept helping each other, since they both
knew that a tree is a wonderful thing.
@Joris: There is still a differnce between looking at the architecture to rewrite the code and copying the code. MS would never risk to use the GPL code in Windows but they do use BSD code without contributing back.
I guess my response to this question is, so?
A research team produces code that is a solid proof of “great idea.” There are several directions this research team can go in taking the next step. They can put strong IP protection on their idea (RSA). They can donate the idea to a specific community of free software that competes with other software (Stallman). They can publish the code and demand only that other people not plagairize without citation (BSD and MIT). Or they can put the code into the public domain in the hope of creating network effects to build the next “great idea.” (Berners-Lee)
The choice between BSD and GPL depends on what turns your crank. If you want to be known as the person who invented the “great idea” that is used by everyone, then BSD is the way to go. If you want to contribute to a community that is creating alternatives to closed software, then GPL is the way to go.
I find the “Lock-up” argument actually rather humerous. Note the attitude when “content-providers” are discussed (Arrrr!).
Now note the attitude when GPL verses every other license is discussed.
Either digital can be locked up, or digital can’t be locked up. You all can’t have it both ways.
Once upon a time there were two friends. They both had
their own forest they let other people use and that they
wanted to expand. BSDL let everyone chop down a tree and
take it with him. GPL did the same thing but also required
that if you chopped down a tree and made something of it,
you should replant it. Both were happy about their situation
but BSDL had to work much harder because it had to plant
all the trees by it self. Both forrests grew by time and GPLs forrest got a bit larger than BSDLs. The two friends didn’t mind this, and kept helping each other, since they both
knew that a tree is a wonderful thing.
Well, this is one of those things that drive me batty in this debate. GPL advocates say that information should be free because it is inherently a non-rivalous resource. No matter how many copies or adaptations of Hamlet you make, there are an infinite number of copies that could be made. However, in debating GPL vs. BSD, GPL advocates argue that more protection is needed because information is really a rivalous resource.
It’s a really curious bit of cognative dissonance. In practice, network effects appear to be sufficient to preventing most malicious forks. The FSF lists a number of non-copyleft free licenses that include big hitters like Apache, perl and python.
GPL approach is that if i can’t earn from my software, i will make sure no one else can. Good growth of a discipline needs industrial backing. With BSD this model was really working. GPL is breaking it. You have the proof, tell me how many companies are making money from GPL code so far? Daily we see Linux distributions die and new come up but finally people give up because they can’t make money out of it. Redhat tries to make money and someone makes whitebox etc to kill their business.
Do you understand that programmers need money and no support business is not enough and neither is services business. It is like saying the car manufacturers will give car for free and then charge only for repair. What if i never go back to that company for repair which gave me free car?
GPL is breaking the whole eco-system if you don’t understand what i mean look below:
universities——>research-
^ |
| |
| |
| |
Money<———–Industry
If there is no strong industry, where will student do internship, who will sponsor for research.
You agree or not, GPL kills way more business than it creates….I used to like GPL but gave up on it about 2 years back because i realized that its like shooting my own foot.
Repetitio mater studiorum est
Yea I guess thats why Intel, Novell, IBM, HP, etc. are joining Linux and the GPL, because it Kills more business than it creates, they dont like money so they decided to go Linux.
The Gentoo founder didnt HAVE to leave Gentoo, he CHOOSE to leave Gentoo, and Red Hat Didnt give up on Fedora, its releasing it as a community project thats still backed and funded by Red Hat and its engeneers. And Red Hat isnt avoiding the GPL, it releases all of its source code just like any other GPL project, geez where do you guys come up with this stuff?
You act as if no BSD project has ever gone down hill or somthing, where are all the corporations backing the BSD camp releasing software for the BSD’s?
Why cant you understand that each License has its place, some release under the BSDL, some und ther GPL, some are going to release under the CDDL.
I don’t know if those comments on fighting communists/communism “just because” are jokes, or are actually for real. One thing I can’t stand is ignorants acting radical and asking us to fight radicals… look at yourself in the fucking mirror. If the comments are for real all I gotta say is: Ignorance is a disease. You get it through hearing and get cured through reading.
I guess some don’t even know the basic meaning of FREEDOM. There is no freedom when that freedom can easily be taken away from you. The BSD license gives you freedom, the GPL ensures your freedom. What do I chose? GPL THANK YOU.
GPL will slowly rot away and eventually die. The only reason that it has not done so yet is simply because all this open source stuff is new to people and they don’t know any better. The GPL, with its stricter rules, is more like a cathedral than a bazaar. The BSD has fewer restrictions which means that it can be used by more people in more circumstances. Most importantly, the BSD license can be used by more companies (which supply the funding needed to keep OSS alive). The GPL will go the way of the dodo as more people learn their way around the OSS landscape and realize the superiority of the BSD license.
Arguing either license is evil or wrong is silly. Both lincenses work and have nutured a lot of great software.
As I remember GPL was RMS’s response to one particular company using his source code for a commercial product then refusing to share their code and hardware with him. This certainly seems like an overreaction to me.
I remember a discussion I had with a coworker when Slackware came out. We had all been using SLS Linux before Slackware came out. Considering SubGenius liturgy I suggested that JR “Bob” Dobbs would probably like the BSD license better than GPL because he could sell derivative works without giving anything away. My coworker argued that JR “Bob” Dobbs would like GPL better because he could give away the code and after everyone becomes dependant on it charge them a boatload for support; the old give away the razor than charge a lot for blades arguemnt. We must have argued for 3 hours over if BSDL or GPL was more slackfull.
Maybe you should look at yourslelf in the mirror. The only “fanatics” is see here are all the anti-commercial software and anti-business GPL cult memebers.
GPL kills jobs? I’m working today THANKS to the GPL. How many jobs does the BSD create? I think the license issue is not the primary thing to have in mind when saying this and that creates a job.
Yes, the GPL kills more Business than it creates, because the businesses DO NOT adapt. You must be one of those “all about the benjamins” fools that point at anyone who seems a threat to the capitalist business model and screams EXTREMIST! COMMUNIST! SATAN IS IN YOU! or so, I don’t understand why the adversity, have you stopped to think and reason for yourself or you just follow the flow?
Honestly, the GPL does much good and if it’s adopted we will experience a new business model where there will be more equiality, competition, and cooperation between companies.
I prefer BSD because it is about true freedom, not the one-sided freedom of GPL.
You don’t even know what true freedom is.
The US constitution says I can’t discriminate against people based on race, religion, etc. In your opinion that’s not true freedom because it places some restrictions on people. Absolute anarchy, do what you want shall be the whole of the law, is the true freedom you’re talking about. Which is just retarded.
Yes, the GPL kills more Business than it creates, because the businesses DO NOT adapt.
No, it’s YOU who can’t think and reason. Businesses don’t adapt to licenses, they adapt to making money. The GPL is poorly adapted to the world of software. It will go extinct.
“I guess some don’t even know the basic meaning of FREEDOM.
There’s really only one way freedom is ensured. Through force, and the implication of force.
“There is no freedom when that freedom can easily be taken away from you.”
Considering the reality of most legal systems. The GPL doesn’t give you more power than the BSD against “taking away”.
“The BSD license gives you freedom, the GPL ensures your freedom.”
Freedom is never assured by the text on a document. Just look at what’s happened to the Constitution.
If the GPL is communist or socialist.
The BSDL is anarchist.
I think these analogies suck because we’re talking about copyright law and capitalism, but if that’s the only way some of you can understand these things, so be it.
Has anyone been reading this, its pretty interesting.
“A History of Free and Open Source – The Daemon, the GNU, and the Penguin.” by Dr. Peter H. Salus.
If you want to start reading here is the table of contents:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050518234539953
No, it’s YOU who can’t think and reason. Businesses don’t adapt to licenses, they adapt to making money. The GPL is poorly adapted to the world of software. It will go extinct.
How difficult to pass on an idea to people with such a blockmind… when i say adapt, i mean adapt to the new way of making money. You see, thorughout history, business models change, and society adapts. A long time ago, there were craftsmen, then came industries… etc. Now with the current situation, private companies feel the law should be dictated by _businesses_. This is plain wrong.
Enterprise cannot lead social evolution, and if new businesses appear with new models, what they want is to pull out a new law that will _protect_ them from failure.
The fact is that people have chosen the GPL and you can’t say it’s gonna die, you can only wait for it to be substituted. You see, the fact is that society evolves and we get new levels of equality and fair-play if we can put it that way. The only fanatics are those who want to conserve their methods because they feel the new are a threat to them, i call that egoism.
I don’t know what planet you are from, but here on earth coding software is not a social event. Sitting in a room by yourself and feeding instructions into a machine is not fun for the vast majority of the earth’s population. Developing software is ‘work’ and the license that makes that the least painful (BSD) will win out over the one that has a lot of needless restrictions (GPL). Bah, all you GPL cult members probably don’t even know the meaning of the word ‘social’.
All licenses restrict freedom. If you want true freedom look at SQLLite, this is free software – it places restrictions on you only request they you do good. But you are free to do as you wish with the code.
Every other license places some restriction on you (listed from least restrictive to most, commercial licenses vary greatly, so i broke them in to three general catagories):
BSD: you are not free to take credit for someone elses code
Commercial source: You pay the fee and then you are generally as free to use it as if you used BSD
LGPL: all the restrictions of BSD plus you may not distribute modified LGPL code unless you release that part as LGPL Open source.
Commercial library: You may build applications based on the library and ditribte them (usually royalty free) but do not get source.
GPL: all of the above restrictions, plus any new code you create must also be released as open source and free of charge (You may charge, but you have to offer the source in free form as well).
Commercial EULA: You may use the software in the manner specified by the author.
If you consider freedom to be freedom of action, then the GPL is second only to the average end user agreement. It is far more restrictive than all the other licenses because it requires that your code be given to the open source community.
GPL fan’s claim they are enforcing freedom because they say the license guarantees that the code will always be free. However, the BSD license does the same thing – the code never ceases to be free. However this is an illusion, because you are trashing the freedom of all that use you works … this is your right, just as companies are with in their rights to have closed licenses – but this is not freedom no matter how you sugar coat it.
GPL may be considered free in the monetary sense as it guarantees that all dirivative works will be available for free to all that want them. This may in fact be true, but when you consider the cost of development, of lost profits and the money lost to competitors that use the same GPL code that you paid to improve, to undercut your price since they have no cost of development – suddenly this is not so free except for to the end user.
To a certian degree freedom is relative and subjective. If the US passed a law that said you were free to move around the country, but you could not cross rockies. I could travel from the east coast to the west coast, so I am free – right? Yes but not as free as i am now. GPL does the equivlent of this I am free to use the code as long as I do not cross the line to profitability (I know i need to accept their new business model – yet another lost freedom)
Yes each license has it’s place, but GPL is the one that seems to offer the least compelling reason to use it other than for the casual hobbyist. BSD offers the least restrictive license short of public domain. I hope that the world wakes up and realizes that the GPL is one of the worst of all lcenses and begins to avoid it – it will do the whole community good.
Well if that last line is true, then corprate america and millions of user dont agaree.
With it, we continue injuring ourselves, cutting ourselves from the economic benefits of BSD license
What economic benefits?
We see people like PHK, part of the FreeBSD core team, asking for donations so he can develop parts of the operating system. We see NetBSD asking for hardware donations, stating they are a “poor”(financially) project. Were as all the major developers of Linux, the people who do the bulk of development, are paid full time.
Maybe by economic benefits, he means benefiting large corporations economically.
“The bsd license is comparable to community service.”
and the GPL is comparable to community service except that EVERYONE is the community service worker…
————-
If a company wants to take a GPL product, like a math plotter or something and modify it to be a SUPER-math plotter and are only going to use it IN HOUSE then the GPL says they do not have to release the code!!! SO actually you can gain a business advantage and have a super cool IN-HOUSE project that no one else has and still beenefit from the GPL…
————
bruno ? what? not sure what you are arguing! the GPL causes patents? huh? “GPL is hostile against proprietary reuse…” NO, it expresslly forbids it, doesnt allow it, not acceptable and this is a good thing! well there is a small excetion to this but thats all….
——–
“..start a software company based around a project you really liked..”
i wouldnt start a company simply to create A software product, software productS maybe, software and support and training and implementations—YES and GPL would be cool so it could be shared and if someone improves it then I just got a free coder to improve my product…
——-
yes the bsd license is great, you have contributed to M$ who would crush you if they could using pieces of your own product… How fantastic is that…
———
the reason a lot of americans cannot wrap their head around the GPL is because it is soooo UNgreedy that they cannot get use to the idea of sharing… Did you ever build a sandcastle by yourself at the beach? wasnt it so much more fun, quicker, interesting and cool when a few people helped you out and added to it… and yes, i am american
—–
WOLF should work for a company like redhat that gives you a paycheck, YES thats right, redhat does pay with MONEY and they are a GPL company thru and thru… please prove to me how redhat is not a money making company…
———
“the BSD license can be used by more companies (which supply the funding needed to keep OSS alive).”
can you show me the check that M$ and others have sent to….where??? where would a company send funds to support the BSDL
——–
“GPL does the equivlent of this I am free to use the code as long as I do not cross the line to profitability ”
profitability – redhat, suse, novell, heck maybe even linspire nah… i doubt it
Where does the GPL require that you NOT be profitable??? How profitable is your BSD code going to be when M$ takes it and makes a new product based on it and then smacks you over the head with it?
If profitability runs hand in hand with BSD then why do they have those damn DONATE buttons on their pages they should be rich since M$ is funding them so much and Cisco and I would bet plenty of others….
—————–
“My coworker argued that JR “Bob” Dobbs would like GPL better because he could give away the code and after everyone becomes dependant on it charge them a boatload for support”
but dont forget that with the GPL any improvements made to your code would be guaranteed to you! so if you make a so-so gpl product and release it and I take it and mae a WOW-WOW product then we both WIN-WIN!!!
———
EUGENIA – please no more posts with “GPL” AND “BSD” together… whew
all the “BSDL is better” guys…
What desktop environment/window manager are you running? just wondering? Please list what software do you enjoy using?
To answer your question Aqua, occasionally KDE when not on a mac. However I am not opposed to using GPL products. My argument is against building something new on them. GPL locks you into the most restricted path. This is not a problem if you are woring on something as a hobby or if you are a believer in the all software should be free” philosophy.
BSD just gives you choices. I am not arguing that projects built on BSD are better than those build on GPL (At least when it comes to open source). However, I think the best Unix is Mac OS X built on a BSD core (they did release thier source – Not all corporations are evil, most are great).
I use GCC every day. It is GPL, i think. I also use Windows a lot. As an end user GPL is great, but as a programmer, GOL is bad.
Wolf, so true brother. you and rayiner and the Sun guys are the only people that are sane around here. we’ve talked about the GPL/GNU “crazies” before. E-mail me.
BSD is better because it has the letter ‘S’ in it
“I am not opposed to using GPL products”
thats right, use it and slam it….
makes sense to me…
shouldnt you SHOW your support by using BSDL stuff
certainly you dont perform abortions on monday and then picket the clinic on tuesday do ya???
ok – that was WAY over the top!
Eric can go take a long walk of a short pier for all I care. If he doesn’t really like the GPL then he can piss off all the GNU applications that he uses. Go on Eric. Go hack them yourself.
After this little bout by Eric I can’t say I think much of him, or his thoughts.
As others have posted, the GPL keeps bastards honest, and ensures that improvements come back to the community. Look at Apple – sure, it’s returning to the community, but not in exactly a very friendly way. KDE are having to shift thru the crud that Apple gives them to pull the good stuff out. Then they’re having to re-work it to go from webcore to khtml again. Is it really worth it?
I don’t give a rats ass about business, it already has too much money, and too much power. And to those programmers whinging about the GPL – don’t fucking use it if you don’t like the license. If you want to be stupid, and then whinge about it, piss off. I’m getting really sick of the pro BSD crap, and attacks on the GPL. Business likes the BSD license because it can do what it wants, even screwing over the original hackers of the software.
No thanks, i’ll keep my integrity and use GPL stuff. Everything else can go to hell.
Dave
Businesses don’t adapt to licenses, they adapt to making money.
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense. Making money is the GOAL, not something you adapt to – that would be things such as market conditions.
Businesses have to adapt to changing market conditions all the time. Some industries flourish, others fade away, that’s how the market works.
OSS (be it BSD or GPL) represents a new challenge for software companies. If they don’t adapt to these changes (and frankly, the difference between the two licenses is not that great on that level) then they won’t succeed.
All this GPL-bashing is quite ridiculous. Both licenses are good.
Wise man. very wise man:) Some of these people just don’t get it. they want to anthropomorphize “code” (binary/source)……”free” it. There is only freedom to those that have, and when you have you can’t really take away with software? You GPL nuts better recognize that you can’t “take away” legally licensed code.
Do these guys even know the meaning of the word (I’ll give them the benefit of doubt), or are they ripping on ESR because he’s advocating BSD?
I see a lot of damn GPL bigotry in that article.
when i say adapt, i mean adapt to the new way of making money….
who are you to decide the “new” way to make money? I know what you mean. spit it out.
Some of these people just don’t get it. they want to anthropomorphize “code” (binary/source)……”free” it.
You’re the one that keeps saying how BSD is freer, now you’re trying to say that saying that code is free is “anthropomorphize” it?
I know you’re just trolling (and I’m feeding you by responding to you), but don’t you realize you aren’t making any sense?
OSNews, please stop pitting users against each other. Its just silly and it shows a complete lack of respect to the community. Real BSDLers have no problem with the GPL or the FSF just as real GPLers and the FSF have no problem with the BSDL. That’s why RMS presented the 2004 Free Software Award to Theo de Raadt http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html
ESR is not only a known crank, he is also a venomous snake. The only nice thing about this thread is that we get to see who the real morons are. Unfortunately, the cost for this ridiculous “knowledge” is far to great. It may be fun for you guys to drop a grenade in the room every so often but its the community that bears the brunt of the damage. PLEASE STOP IT!!
I think, GPL has only one major flaw – the obligation to provide changes to the GPLed software for free – this cannot be accepted in the commercial world. If the businesses were allowed to charge for that “improved” product, they wouldn’t complain about GPL. Nowadays, to own source code is not a great win – if you own information system, that has 2GB of source code and is dependent on database-stored configuration tables, source won’t provide you much freedom – only the freedom to hire company to fix something minor for you. But still, at least theoretically, avoids vendor lockups.
Still, GPL is the best of known licences; better one should be proposed only after major society and juridical changes (exclusion of SW patents, price attached to everything, …)
The reason why GPL is conceived as is, lies in our current business situation – laws, that don’t cope with the actual state of technology, outdated business practices, lack of strategic reasoning outside own business, limited funding, human factor etc. In a friendlier and fairer world, GPL would be seen as awfully strange licence; but we’re not there yet. There is still war between wolves and rabbits, and probably will be forever. BSD is more conceptually nice, as it reflects what humans perceive as freedom, GPL copes with the malfunction of our legal system.
“If the businesses were allowed to charge for that “improved” product, they wouldn’t complain about GPL”
really, i would say that if business realized that they could stop reinventing the wheel over and over then they might realize thh benefits of GPL. That if everyone shared then everyone benefits, no massive duplication of effort!
It’s the fundies that think code religion and “free”. Maybe you have a problem with the word anthropomorphic and talk to fundies that think “code deserves to be free”
Reading the article, the English sounds rather distorted and I wonder if ESR wasn’t misquoted. His comments about the GPL don’t match what he’s said earlier. Remember, this all happened in Brazil, and it could be possible that something was lost in the translation.
excerpt from http://www.gnupauk.org/DiskusiJa/PrijedloZi/BothDevilAndGnu
“But nowadays the public domain is acutely being reduced by means of market regulation. An indication of this situation is the automatism by which the legal regulation (beginning in 1976 in the US) regards all new intellectual production as private property, unless it is not explicitly exempted from it. Reacting to this, GNU General Public License protects the freedom to use and to develop, but at the same time creates a strategic collective subject – one of rare proactive advocates of public interest. Namely, while dedication to the public domain transforms a product into a public resource, GNU General Public License primarily defines the contractual relation that serves to secure the freedom of means of production and to constitute a community of those participating in the production and reproduction of free resources. And it is this constitutive character, as an answer to an every time singular situation of appropriation by the capital, that is a genuine political emancipation striving for an equal and free collective production.
Marcell Mars & Tom Medak”
The biggest problem is simply that GPL code is not reusable outside of GPL. If you think GPL is the only software in the world then GPL is great. As long as proprietary code exists within the market then GPL is pointless. GPL and BSD will be forever split because GPL code can not be modified or reused by BSD code in any way. When there are multiple licenses including propreitary, BSD is a much better license. Much more code can be reused between projects without restriction and much less duplication of effort will take place.
Plus just because BSD doesn’t say you “have to” give back source code doesn’t mean that people won’t do just that. BSD code is much more altrusitic in a sense, it is given without political or social agenda. It doesn’t make assumptions about its consumers and it is is inherently a much better fit for education purposes as the code can’t be claimed to be pinched at some later point as long as credit is given where credit is due. Plus, the more code that is reused, the more likely that that it will remain interoperable and that standards will be fostered.
If I get a source with BSDL and I can can do whatever I want to it, therefore I can take the source, revise it, make a statement crediting the BSD and turn it into a GPL, no one can hinder this freedom, right?
The only one talking like a fundamentalist here is you.
Dude wake up…the total profits generated by Linux are even lesser than OSX which is single useful distribution from BSD. And you think RedHat is making money lol