The latest issue of the FreeBSD newsletter contains a letter from the Vice President of the FreeBSD Foundation about the GPLv3. “On June 29th, the Free Software Foundation unveiled version 3 of the GNU General Public license. Even though the majority of software included in the FreeBSD distribution is not covered by any version of the GPL, our community cannot ignore this very popular license or its most recent incarnation. Through extremely successful evangelization, and the popularity of Linux, the misconception that OpenSource and the GPL are synonymous has become pervasive.”
From the article:
*sigh* another Stallman… this one just on the BSD-frontier…
Let’s put RMS and Justin T. Gibbs in a big arena and let them fight to death – and then kill the survivor (figuratively speaking, of course).
That’ll stop this incredibly stupid Holy War between the two factions.
They are both wrong – it’s that simple.
There is no holy war. There is just one party who refers to a mockery of freedom and there is another party who refers to real freedom. Ask some prisoner about *real* freedom or some people in the VR of China about it.
>They are both wrong – it’s that simple.
It’s that simple? Yes indeed if you don’t know anything about these terms.
What does “VR” stand for?
I am curious because you seem to compare some of us to prisoners, in the context of freedom, the lack of.
You are a BSD-zealot so I gather you consider the GPL’s “Freedom for everybody” to be false freedom.
BSD is the freedom to enslave other people. GPL is the freedom from slavery.
You consider the lack of a protected right to slavery as a lack of freedom. I consider the lack of protection against slavery a lack of freedom.
Your religious POV can easily be turned around and used against the BSD license (or in deed any permissive license). I don’t know why you keep talking about China. Communist-China is the BSD and USA is the GPL if we are to use your logic, if that can be called logic.
EDIT: An even better comparison would be CSA vs. USA in the 1860’es. Only I won’t tell you which one is the good one.
Edited 2007-08-31 23:40 UTC
>BSD is the freedom to enslave other people.
How so? How does BSD enslave anyone? If anything it gives me code to learn from and use in ,almost, every way I see fit. How does that equate slavery?
The BSD gives the first person right to do everything except removing the copyright notice and the list of conditions. It does allow the person to sublicensing it so those who acquire the product cannot modify it.
That’s what the Vice President states as one of the advantages of the BSD license. The freedom for one person to take freedom away from other persons.
I quote him here:
[if they choose the GPL v3.]
The BSD license allows for reducing the rights for other persons and that equals enslavement. The BSD grants all kinds of freedom including the freedom to restrict other people. The GPL allows most kind of freedoms but not the freedom to restrict other people. The BSD-fans complain about this, calling it lack of freedom (because it forces code-sharing), and the GPL-fans complain about the lack of protection of _everybodys_ right, and call it lack of freedom.
Personally I prefer a modified 3-clause BSD license where the third clause says that the terms cannot be changed. No obligation to share source code – and no right to restrict other people.
It does allow the person to sublicensing it so those who acquire the product cannot modify it.
You seem to be under the common misconception (common among GPL zealots) that the original source somehow no longer is available if someone sublicenses BSD licensed code.
It’s merely a branching where the branching vendor can safely include works under licenses that don’t allow for the source to be opened.
The code is still there for anyone to pick up and use pretty much as they like, and it’s merely the vendors changes that may not be released as it’s not a requirement.
How you translate that to the vendor taking away your freedoms is beyond me.
First of all I’m not a GPL-zealot, as if evident from the last part. I quote:
Now, that doesn’t sound RMS’ish. Personally I’d prefer if copyright didn’t exist, but it does.
The availability of the code has nothing to do with the license. Nobody can guarantee the code will always be available. Code-disappearance happens now and then – also for the GPL’ed code. The legal issues are different, but the risk is identical.
You do however forget (as common among BSD-zealots
) that the code the End User receives is sublicensed, removing the rights for said End User to use, modify and distribute the code as the End User sees fit. The End User do not have the rights granted by the BSD.
One may have access to the parent unmodified source code, but access to the source code is irrelevant. I disagree with the obligation in GPL to share the source code. Personally I’m satisfied as long as I have the right to use, modify (including decompiling of) and distribute the (binary) code I receive.
The original parent source code is irrelevant since I may not use it on the bought system, I may not be capable of running it on the system, due to DRM* (or other preventive mechanisms). Personally I don’t mind DRM as long as it is legal to circumvent.
Yes, and that branch of the original source code is closed, and it is that branch of the source the End User receives. The original source is irrelevant, since the End User does not receive, and may not even know the relationship between the Modified Source and the Parent Source.
No, it is not. An open branch of the BSD-licensed source code related to the closed BSD-licensed source code may be available. But it doesn’t change the fact that it may not be used on the system (at least without violating the EULA and – in USA – the DMCA).
The fact that the Vendor is not required to give the End User the same rights the Vendor received is what makes the BSD a weak license. It allows for “enslavement” of the End User. Besides that the Vendor is not required to anything at ALL! Not even to give access to the original source code. Which is okay with me. As long as I have the same rights to use, modify and distribute the (binary) code. The Vendor is only required to proper attribution (and in the source files: to leave conditions in place).
Since the vendor can branch the code and release it under a closed license the End User lost his/her freedom. The Vendor can use a license which prohibits using any kind of modified software on the device.
The original source means nothing in this situation. It doesn’t run on the system under any circumstance so it is irrelevant anyway. It is the product and the rights the End User receive that matters and nothing else. BSD-licensed files can be sublicensed to a closed, proprietary product which uses DRM to prevent the user from legally using, modifying and distributing BSD-licensed code.
How you translate that to the vendor NOT taking away your freedoms is beyond me.
That aspect of GPL talks not about restricting freedom, but about being fair. You started from a code base. GPL considers it fair that in exchange for that code you also give your code back under the same terms, since without the original code you wouldn’t have a product to begin with. You don’t like that? Don’t use the code. Write it from scratch or find code that is licensed differently.
GPL prevents people from denying others the original freedom, and also imposes a fair return for the use of the code (you pay the code with code).
BSD doesn’t care if people deny others the freedom the code started with. It doesn’t care what is “fair” to do with that code. It doesn’t care about anything except keeping the name of the sucessive authors in place.
They are different approaches to the concepts of “freedom” and “fairness”. Everybody is free
to choose the one they like.
Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. Nobody’s hand is twisted to choose GPLv3. Just because it has been published doesn’t mean anything. Those who adopt it for their projects do so out of their own free will.
Therefore and I am quite puzzled about why the BSD crowd would become so vocal about GPLv3. If it wasn’t for inflamatory statements like this one, coming from the head of the FreeBSD foundation, I’d be enclined to believe it’s someone else trying to inflame people. God knows that a rift between open source communities would benefit the money-hungry corporations a lot.
It’s real freedom to live even with somewhat of a abuse of this freedom. You have to have courage for *real freedom*.
>God knows that a rift between open source communities would benefit the money-hungry corporations a lot.
The GPL isn’t open source.
<strong>GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope — the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL’d, we cannot get it back.</strong>
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657
>GPL prevents people from denying others the original freedom
Like president Bush “delivers freedom” to the world? Enforcing freedom isn’t freedom at all. It’s not religion, it’s reasoning, it’s philosophy!
If you’re are in fear of real freedom, and this is exactly the problem of RMS and the FSF, then don’t call it freedom. Because you’re about to pervert everything this term stands for.
free as in freedom, there you have your so-called religion, your mockery of the term *freedom*.
RMS wants to be a philosopher, but in fact he did not read one single sentence of these real philosophers. It’s not BSD who started this “freedom”-mumbo jumbo, it was RMS fault, because he didn’t think about his words. And this is the problem too with Linux-community, they aren’t able to think about it, they are just full of faith. And every single critic will be a menace to them. Faith Vs knowledge – et voila a flamewar is born.
I really, truly wish there were a enforceable moratorium on the use of the word “Freedom” when discussing software licensing. If nothing else, it’s a misuse of the word – the definition that’s relevant is “power to determine action without restraint.” In literal terms, that doesn’t apply to any license I can think of – commercial, GPL, BSD, MIT, etc (with the exception of public domain, which isn’t really a license per se). Really, what is a software license if not a list/set of restrictions on use & distribution? Once something is restricted in any way, then it is – by definition – not free.
Certainly the relative degree to which different licenses are restricted is a valid topic – and as with anyone else who finds the subject interesting, I find specific sets of restrictions (licenses) more palatable than others. But that doesn’t mean that it’s valid for me try to equate my preferred set of restrictions with “freedom” – and equate all other sets of restrictions with “enslavement.”
You are using the narrow understanding of the word “freedom”. There is also a broad understanding.
Freedom is narrowly defined as the ability to act without restraint from the government, or any other entity. Since all are equal this automatically means your freedom ends the moment you try to limit the freedom of other persons. That’s the GPL.
Freedom as a concept has negative freedoms (freedom from) and positive freedoms (freedom to).
GPL has both kinds (freedom to and freedom from). BSD has only one kind (freedom to).
BSD has not freedom from oppression. GPL has. In that narrow sense of understanding the GPL is freer than BSD. Only if you deny the existence or right to negative freedoms can the BSD be considered to be the freer license.
EDIT: Enslavement is defined as any kind of restriction that is not created to protect the positive freedoms. The restrictions (negative freedoms) in GPL are there to protect the positive freedoms and therefore are not enslavement. The BSD has no such restrictions (but does have restrictions) and as such allows for enslavement (e.g. Microsoft EULA).
Edited 2007-09-01 01:58 UTC
If I understand well, BSD, by allowing developpers to close their own code is a tool of oppression, while GPL, by forcing those same developpers to publish their code is a tool of freedom ? And if you develop and wish to keep your code for you you’re an oppressor, enslaving your users ?
The restraint in this context is Copyright law (restricting the use of the copyrighted work), and the licence grants additional use of the work. I would call that granting additional freedoms to users/propagators.
Edited 2007-09-02 05:06
“Between the weak and the strong, it is freedom that oppresses and the law that liberates.” J.J.R.
Edited 2007-09-01 09:07
I was in total agreement with you right up until the “figuratively” part.
Huh? I would like to ask for clarification, but I won’t since it might put you in a difficult position. Sure does sound to me like you’d like to do it as in _really_ do it. O_o
Yet more disinformation that would do Mr Torvalds proud, I’m sure. The complaint that vendors have to service user-modified appliances is specious: whilst the GPLv3 requires that users can actually run the covered software on the hardware for which it was supplied (thus defeating so-called “tivoization”), there’s nothing to stop vendors from refusing to support modified software if the user’s appliance stops working properly.
Amusing to see that after the sermon on what Mr Gibbs regards as “free” software, presumably ignoring the observation that it’s end-user freedoms that are at the heart of the GPL, we have a fundraising update. When companies are relatively reluctant to contribute code to a permissively licensed project, I guess you just have to pass the hat round.
And I suppose there’s no need to dwell on the observation that the permissive licence crowd’s response to the threat of software patent litigation (and other threats to users and developers of Free Software) is to put their heads in the sand. That’s quite a “response to version 3 of the GPL” as if one were actually needed, that is.
His other claim, the one about FCC approval, was also misleading. As if a vendor would be held responsible for something a user did with a modified product.
The vendor would not be held responsible. However, the fact that the end user even COULD modify the product for unregulated spectrum use can hinder it’s FCC approval. Use of the radio spectrum is a touchy situation since it’s not just an unlimited resource. Most current devices are not only designed to only operate within their designated spectrum but also to be difficult to modify otherwise.
What he’s referring to here is software defined radio. Now while modifying the software for unauthorized spectrum use is a legitimate concern, changing the software license so it’s “not allowed” is hardly much of a protection against that.
> His other claim, the one about FCC approval, was also misleading. As if
> a vendor would be held responsible for something a user did with a
> modified product.
FCC approval would probably be a lot harder if you pass along with the device a license that explicitly allows to modify the software to send on other frequencies. Which the GPL in effect is (it even says that the four freedom it grants may not be limited by other means, while in fact “other means” such as frequency regulation *does* limit the freedoms for a good reason).
EDIT: This may not be legally bulletproof – in fact I guess it is very well possible to get such a device approved (and after all, IANAL). However, how many companies are going through the necessary mess? Time-to-market is critical in that business.
Edited 2007-09-01 20:06
That belief is what he meant by “evangelization.”
For the love of God, enough with the “GPL/FSF is a religion” crap!
Well, it stands to reason that if redistributors must show the code if asked to, then the end-user has the opportunity to see the code. Meanwhile, if all you’re doing is showing them a copyright statement and the BSD licence, there’s not much software freedom to be had for the end-user.
Hardly evangelism – more like common sense, in fact.
I agree on the general assessment of FUD.
As you alluded, Tivoization is part of a larger issue concerning the vendor’s responsibility to ensure that their users obey TOS and legal requirements. For example, it speaks to the issue of whether P2P software distributors are responsible for their users’ deference to copyright law.
IMHO, it falls on the user to follow the rules set forth by the vendor and the laws in their jurisdiction. The vendor should not be liable for servicing users that violate their TOS, nor should they be liable under civil or criminal code for the activities of their users.
Furthermore, this is just the beginning of a new era of locked software products. Intel’s TXT allows any software vendor to easily make their software tamper-proof on commodity hardware. Most commercial software will soon be digitally signed by the vendor, including many commercial open-source products. We’ll be allowed to look but not touch.
BSD is trying to position themselves as “free as in free market”. The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?
Real freedom (to borrow our own Oliver’s language) is a paradox. Real freedom requires real choice. However, real freedom allows distributors to eliminate real choice. Therefore, the closest we can get to real freedom is to impose just enough restrictions to protect real choice.
It’s not Tivo’s hardware, as Linus often suggests. It is, however, Tivo’s service. If Tivo says I lose my service if I change the software, that’s their right. I could start my own company to service Tivos running modified software. That’s real choice, and that’s my idea of freedom. Is it “real freedom”? No, and that’s a good thing.
> It’s not Tivo’s hardware
It is Tivo’s hardware before they sell it to you.
Everyone agrees that modifying hardware you own is fine. Even the evil telecom industry has a hard time defending not allowing private SIM unlocking.
But the GPLv3 goes way beyond that, and would dictate how Tivo designed their hardware before they ever sell it. That is the big problem for some people. The GPLv3 dictates the hardware design of devices that use GPLv3 software. They took a pure software development license and added tendrils that snake into hardware development.
It is Tivo’s hardware before they sell it to you.
Yes, and I didn’t exist before I was born. What’s your point?
would dictate how Tivo designed their hardware
The GPLv3 only says that derived works must not be prevented from running. Tivo may implement whatever anti-tampering hardware they wish, but it may not be used to restrict derived works of GPLv3 software. In other words, they can implement technology such as TXT, and they can use it to lock-down non-GPLv3 software, including their proprietary software.
As I said in the thread about vPro/TXT, these technologies can be used as an effective security feature so long as users sign their trusted binaries instead of vendors signing them. GPLv3 doesn’t prohibit this potentially useful technology. It simply prevents it from being used against GPLv3 software in evil ways.
I was getting at the freedom thing. Explaining it would be like explaining a joke. Too late now!
It all comes down to this: the GPLv3 is a software license that dictates hardware design. Software license. Dictating hardware design. That is very strange to a lot of people.
Edited 2007-09-01 05:30 UTC
the GPLv3 is a software license that dictates hardware design.
Repeating this over and over again won’t make it true.
>Repeating this over and over again won’t make it true.<
And dining it over and over again doesn’t make it false.
No. If TiVo burns the GPLv3 software in ROM (which cannot be modified later on by TiVo) then it is not a GPLv3 violation.
What TiVo is doing is, it is reserving the right to modify GPLv3 software, but denying the same right to users. This is a clear violation of GPLv3, don’t you feel it?
What TiVo is doing is, it is reserving the right to modify GPLv3 software, but denying the same right to users. This is a clear violation of GPLv3, don’t you feel it?
TiVo doesn’t use GPLv3 software, so no.
What TiVo is doing is reserving the right to allow what software gets put on their hardware. They are not denying the right of anyone to modify the software they use.
Yes, my bad! s/GPLv3/GPL
But i hope you get the point, right?
No, I don’t. I think I made that clear in my post.
GPL doesn’t grant you the right to mention a specific copy of source code, only a copy. Your own copy.
This argument sounds absurd to me.
1. We dont need TiVo example to validate this argument.
2. If we use this argument in other contexts, what it essentially results in is, “GPL type rights cannot be enforced using copyright license terms” (IANAL).
If this is what you have in mind, i have nothing else to say; we have to agree to disagree!
That’s not what I’m saying at all and those don’t even match up to what I said.
If someone is planning on using GPLv3 software on their devices, then, yes, it is ‘dictating’ their hardware design to the extent that they cannot lock end=users out of modifying that software while they themselves still can. Those are the particular conditions on software propagation that the GPLv3 is designed to impose. If people think it is strange, they can avoid using it if they choose.
The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?
*raises hand*
The more free market, the more freedom. All the efforts to “protect” here and there, to “restrict” here and there, are just making things worse.
Efforts that are actually productive are the ones made in a radically different direction, that is, ensuring the market is really free – it’s not me saying this, and not even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman: it’s history.
Real freedom (to borrow our own Oliver’s language) is a paradox. Real freedom requires real choice. However, real freedom allows distributors to eliminate real choice. Therefore, the closest we can get to real freedom is to impose just enough restrictions to protect real choice.
Strongly disagree. The closest we can get to real freedom is to *avoid imposing further restrictions*.
I can understand when a vendor imposes restrictions – WTH, it’s *their* stuff, let them do whatever they want; if I don’t have a use for it, I don’t buy it. If they piss off their users, let them hammer their own testicles.
OTOH, I can’t understand when open source software comes with restrictions.
Suppose a professional developer sees a GPL software and has a great idea about making a significant improvement, that would cost him a lot of time but that some users would be ready to pay big bucks for.
Since the software base is GPL, the developer couldn’t do it without giving away the code for free – and this means that in most cases it wouldn’t do it.
I see no winners here, and two losers: the developer, and the users.
And I can’t see *why* they should be losers when they could be winners, if only the software base would have published with a BSD license instead of a GPL.
>>The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?
>*raises hand*
And how far did you have to dig to bury your head in the sand to ignore the Microsoft’s monopoly?
Somehow apparently the market didn’t prevent Microsoft from gaining a monopoly, that’s not a first, that’s why they are anti-trust law (which failed in Microsoft’s case)..
And how far did you have to dig to bury your head in the sand to ignore the Microsoft’s monopoly?
Microsoft monopoly is one reason why one would expect people to try to make the market *more* free.
Instead, I see just the opposite: people bitching against free market, calling voluntary trade “enslavement”, and calling the removal of choice “freedom”.
Uh? Your logic is flawed: current markets are free-markets and Microsoft used this to build a monopoly.
How could ‘more free market’ have prevented Microsoft monopoly?
And that is what the GPL is trying to do. By restricting only the right to take away freedom, yet removing all other restrictions, the GPL is trying to even the playing field. Think of it as an agreement to play fair, if that helps.
In a totally free market, anybody has the right to lock you into they’re solutions, especially in the software industry. Many countries have frameworks in place to curb such practices, and for good reason. If anybody has the right walk all over you, would you stick up for that right in the name of freedom?
You say that we should be trying to make the market more free. It is exactly this freedom, the freedom to take away freedom from someone else, that the GPL is trying to deal with. If that is the only restriction, then I’m all for it.
Really, it seems to me that you have miss understood the argument. If you want to release your software BSD, that’s fine by me but if you want to help in a GPL project, you have to play by the rules, just as much as someone who uses your BSD software has to respect those terms. If I don’t agree with your terms, then I don’t use your software, period. That’s called freedom of choice.
By restricting only the right to take away freedom, yet removing all other restrictions, the GPL is trying to even the playing field.
If I buy a piece of closed-source software because it makes my life/work easier (and sometimes it happens; there’s a lot of excellent open source software around, but there are cases in which you are better off with a commercial solution), you can repeat as much as you like that they’re “taking away my freedom”, or “abusing” me, it’s still BS.
Reality is, people who would be glad to be able to prevent the developers from selling it to me – FSF says closed-source software is “immoral” (!) – are actually trying to take away my (and their) freedom.
In a totally free market, anybody has the right to lock you into they’re solutions, especially in the software industry. Many countries have frameworks in place to curb such practices, and for good reason. If anybody has the right walk all over you, would you stick up for that right in the name of freedom?
This reveals an astounding lack of knowledge about fundamental economic issues, like the very definition of “free market”.
Free market has nothing to do with abuse, or with people walking over other people. As a matter of fact, free market is possible only in a framework of justice that *prevents* abuse.
If a monopolist can adopt dirty techniques to prevent the raising of competitors, it means the market isn’t completely free. If a vendor is allowed to play dirty tricks to lock in its customers, it means the market isn’t completely free.
I strongly suggest you and the GPL proponents have a look at an excellent book, “Free to choose” by Nobel prize Milton Friedman. That would – hopefully – make you regain some touch with reality.
[Edit: typos]
Edited 2007-09-01 17:07
You seem to, wrongly, think that I have some issue with closed source applications. Not only have I never stated such a thing, I regularly buy, and run, closed source apps.
I don’t have much time for hard liners and never have.
You can keep repeating that line all you like but it won’t make it any more true. I suggest you read up on basic market economics before you start trying to sell your opinions as fact.
The definition of a free market is where people have no restrictions on how they choose to do business, i.e. where there are no regulations in place to restrict them. This is common knowledge, to state otherwise is to show ones ignorance in such matters.
I strongly suggest you take some lessons in economics before you start running at the mouth. That way, next time you might avoid embarrassment.
Further more, if you had been less condescending and more willing to present your ideas in a less aggressive manner, I would not have to kick your post in the teeth.
Next time, please try and be a bit more civil. Maybe then I wont feel the need to belittle you so much. you would also be presenting yourself as less of an asshole.
“I strongly suggest you take some lessons in economics before you start running at the mouth.”
Ignoring the arguments which are poor. If you are talking economics Monopolies are really really bad. I’m sure if you were even aware of the basics you would know how bad.
Now as for abusing a monopoly well…
I’m sorry but, could you please try and format your post in same way that I, and I suspect many others, could understand? What exactly are you trying to say?
In a few years time when you’ve quite possibly lost the ability to run that software on contemporary hardware, and presumably aren’t allowed to run it legally under emulation (if any emulator has been developed), you might see how much freedom you’re left with.
And this isn’t a hypothetical situation: it has happened to many people already. Of course, if reverse engineering binaries and proprietary file formats is some kind of sport for you, with increased excitement when it’s valuable stuff you’re trying to recover in the data produced by those programs, perhaps giving up some of those freedoms is part of the fun. It generally isn’t fun for everyone else.
This isn’t Oz, you know. You don’t just snap your heels and “make” things “free”. Freedom is not the natural state of inter-personal relationships. People are not equal. That’s a fairy tale. In real life the strong dictate the rules and you need an edge to get ahead.
Now, you have a choice. You can agree that the strong one is a something like the government and let it enforce rules that give everybody a fair chance. Or you can let everybody do what they want, in which case natural selection will elect a 300 lbs guy with a shotgun.
While we’re getting rid of silly terms, let’s ban this one, at least in this context: monopoly.
A monopoly is defined as one company so controlling the market that:
1) nobody else can start a business;
2) nobody else can profit.
Since Microsoft has come into play, dozens of companies have entered the field — even if you take out all the Linux repackagers.
As to profit — it’s very easy to overlook that Microsoft is the second richest OS company on the planet. IBM, a Linux repackager, is 15th in the Fortune 500, with $91 billion in revenues each year. Microsoft is 49th, with $44 billion. And that’s not counting the various companies who have stakes in OSS and free software, such as Dell and Hewett-Packard. (And the GPL isn’t the only way to get quick wealth — BSD-based corporation Google is #293 and rising meteorically.)
Even ‘struggling’ OS companies such as Red Hat, Canonical, and Linspire are pocketing between $10 million and $1 billion each year. I don’t know about you, but if I can go from nothing to making over $10 million a quarter in just a few years, then I would consider my business a success. If I was ethically unburdened and started packaging GPL and BSD software in the same way they have, I too could be a millionaire by the end of the year.
Microsoft has a majority, definately. But not a monopoly. They do not control the market, and they do not prevent other companies from becoming almost overnight millionaires. If they were a monopoly, we would not be talking about alternate operating systems. On the contrary — the time has never been better to get into the operating system business.
“As to profit — it’s very easy to overlook that Microsoft is the second richest OS company on the planet. IBM,”
I’ll cut out the rest of the garbage IBM make money from everything from consultancy to CPU’s to servers and have their fingers in many pies.
Microsoft is undeniably a Monopoly. They kicked IBM many years ago and IBM have *never* recovered, and many people including myself viewed the death of IBM in the OS areana as a good/exiting thing.
…but Microsoft not a OS..and an office monopoly, and their monopolies expand all the time, by illegally using this monopoly to create *new* monopolies, saying anything otherwise is crackers.
If Microsoft can call OOXML a “standard” then I think we’re allowed to call Microsoft a “monopoly”.
By that logic, let’s abolish all laws. Let’s see how free you’re going to feel without police to guarantee you can walk around safely, government protecting you from bad business practices and so on.
Police doesn’t help. Police is basically a mistake. They tend to do nothing and care more about speed tickets (they give nice profit) than actual crimes.
If you want to live safely – defend yourself. You have that right.
Bzzt! Read the GPL FAQ: the developer only has to offer the code to people receiving the binaries. They can charge as much money as they want for the binaries, but must then offer the source code.
Of course, charge $50 for some “neat” software and then some user might ask for the sources, then upload them to the Internet. But really, the developer should be looking at ways to entice people to pay them for the binaries, either because it’s more convenient for most users, or perhaps because as the originator or reputable developer of the software, they’re seen as the more reliable source of enhancements.
On that latter aspect of competing suppliers of mostly the same code, compare and contrast the fortunes of Red Hat against Oracle, who were supposedly going to muscle in on Red Hat’s enterprise customers. Have they all defected to Oracle? Sometimes it’s the service that matters most.
What GNU people don’t get is that their unfriendliness to proprietary and copyrighted software and patents hurts them in the first place, and no proprietary vendors. The world we live in is dominated by proprietary and copyrighted software and patents. They are in huge majority, especially in consumers market. Choosing not to be interoperable with them leads only to isolation.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am surely not going to be Don Quijote for the cause.
Tell that to SCO!
Please learn to distinguish between these terms before lecturing us. You might think that patents on software are OK, but they are nasty instrument which lets people tell other people not to develop software of a particular nature, even if those in the threatened parties have never seen a single patent document in their lives. Where is the freedom in that situation when people are threatened to stay out of a line of endeavour because someone claims to “own” it already?
I suppose your solution is to suck up to the corporate patent holders and hope you don’t rub them up the wrong way – a fine notion of “freedom”, I’m sure.
> whilst the GPLv3 requires that users can actually run the covered
> software on the hardware for which it was supplied (thus defeating so-
> called “tivoization”), there’s nothing to stop vendors from refusing to
> support modified software if the user’s appliance stops working
> properly.
Actually there is: The fact that denying promised support to your customers is one great way to screw your business up. Even if *that* kind of support is actually not what you promised and offered in a contract, it will *look* as if your company is nitpicking about contract details to cheat on its customers.
I guess that’s what he is concerned about. At least I would be.
So when the manufacturer of your television, refridgerator, oven, washing machine, etc. tells you that tinkering with the innards voids the warranty, did that spell the end of their business model? Didn’t think so.
No, what he’s concerned about is making device manufacturers overly wary of GPLv3-licensed projects. Never mind the fact that vendors who get themselves into licence violation proceedings tend to exhibit a less than acceptable awareness of any software licensing basics, GPL-related or otherwise.
What was he trying to say, anyway? A whole page of text and absolutely nothing concrete in there. Gee, BSD and GPL are different, what breaking news that is. And “effective response to version 3 of the GPL”, what the hell is that? Is FreeBSD preparing to develop an alternative to the GNU userland? What?
It would so rock if they did.
It would be quite interesting to see that come true. Considering the occasional difference in design ideals I’d like to see a BSD Userland.
Excuse me, what do you think is BSD? Just a kernel with GNU userland? There is a userland of BSD, there are just some parts of the toolchain borrowed from GNU.
All this talk about chains always brings to my mind that old saying “A chain is as strong as it’s weakest link”…
I know *BSD is a lot more. Remember… I also use DesktopBSD. I’m not just another (GNU/)Linux-user.
Many important parts of the userland is GPL’ed – even the main compiler (GCC). Pull out the GPL’ed part and you have no system.
Personally I’d like to see what the BSD-devs could do. They often have some nice simple solutions, which really makes FSF-code look secondary.
Admitting for a second that all BSD devs suddenly became so rabidly anti-GPL overnight, they could just fork the GPLv2 versions. It’s still easier than rewriting the whole thing from zero.
Nevermind that I don’t get why the sudden knot in the panties over stuff migrating from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
The only logical explanation I see is a sad one: BSD people foresee a possible backlash of the commercial vendors over the GPLv3 and want to step in and offer BSD as an alternative. But they’d need to weed out all things GPL before they can do that.
If that’s what this is about, it’s a cunning agenda. All this talk about “freedom” and the first chance they get they kick fellow open sourcers to get ahead in the commercial market. Leaves a bad taste somehow.
Parts that are GNU are slowing being replaced. As for the compiler, how about LLVM; the GCC front end is being replaced, its not licenced under GPL, and it has major backing from a company like Apple.
The licence it uses is BSD derived and OSI approved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM
Edited 2007-09-01 21:29
Lookin’…
“Many important parts of the userland is GPL’ed – even the main compiler (GCC).”
That’s pretty much the *only* part of userland that is GNU and GPL’d.
“Pull out the GPL’ed part and you have no system. ”
Sure you do, you just can’t compaile anything.
> It would so rock if they did.
Hell yeah, I can’t wait porting my scripts because suddenly, everyone decides to change a couple of switches, kill a few options, introduce a few new ones and modify some behavior, maybe invoking some licensing issues.
I don’t mean to be a hypocrite, but the GPL userland works quite well, as much as I dislike GPL myself. Is there any reason to do such a thing *besides* trying to get a non-GPL userland?
>Is FreeBSD preparing to develop an alternative to the GNU userland? What?
There is already an alternative, there is just no real alternative to the toolchain. And it’s just about real freedom.
what the hell is that? Is FreeBSD preparing to develop an alternative to the GNU userland? What?
no,I think FreeBSD is preparing to unload a massive rapid dominance anti-GPLv3 propaganda to vendors,etc.
Edited 2007-09-01 09:47
Arguing which of GPL or BSD is more “free” is one thing. Make the argument and let the people and vendors decide for themselves.
However, engaging in actual badmouthing the other in front of vendors is something dirty, best left to the likes of Microsoft.
That would be crazy and terribly unsporting, so I seriously doubt the FreeBSD Foundation would stoop to that.
That would be crazy and terribly unsporting, so I seriously doubt the FreeBSD Foundation would stoop to that.
with what he said “As these companies devise strategies for dealing with GPLv3, so must the FreeBSD community – strategies that capitalize on this opportunity to increase adoption of FreeBSD.” i would only assume that FreeBSD is gearing their anti-GPLv3 propaganda machine to capitalize on the matter. maybe they are going to use microsoft’s tactics since it has brought them massive results.
Bullshit, the FSF works like Microsoft. You have “to sign” their license, to get their mockery of freedom. They are “stealing” BSD software and they are giving nothing back to BSD developers. This is exactly the behaviour of most of the companies out there.
The GPL is a plaque for open source.
You “have” to? What on Earth are you talking about? Who’s forcing you to use GPL’d software? Or distribute it? Or make derived works from it? Aren’t you doing that willingly?
Is the FSF pushing its stuff on you via OEM vendors and denies you choice? Are they locking their stuff in on only one platform and denying you choice? Are they embracing and extending standards using an established world-wide de facto monopoly thus imposing their own proprietary technology on you and denying you choice?
And if you’re serious about that “stealing” stuff, I blame Thom Holwerda. Look at this Thom, look what your flamebait articles on OsNews did. Here’s a guy who actually believed that stupid story that ran the other day.
Oh and BTW, it’s “plague”. “Plaque” is that thing that the dentist cleans off your teeth. Unless you meant it that way, in which case kudos for artistic impression.
Edited 2007-09-01 19:01
[i]hey are “stealing” BSD software and they are giving nothing back to BSD developers. This is exactly the behaviour of most of the companies out there [/q]
nonsense, nobody is stealing anything, the BSD license permits anybody take the code and use it any way they like without giving anything back. If something is expected in return then the BSD license needs to be changed or use the GPL.
Since any successful GPL and BSD project is inherently supported by corporate business donations, both communities strive to protect their ecosystems, namely bread winner.
The bottom line is, the industry should make an agreement on several collaboration models. One could be in BSD style, much like open standards that everyone could utilize without any refunds or obligations, and the other would be in GPL style – cumulative work. Maybe we could even have a combination of the two, so you could make a proprietary (closed) product using “open” technology by paying indemnity to open-source consortium/foundation.
That would be a healthy way of developing technology, which is pretty much what we have today and even what we 50 years ago, in a sense. So basically we should settle on what will be a common good (like classical music), what could be used with appropriate crediting and what requires giving something back (work or money).
The best words from a BSD developer I’ve read about the GPL v3 came IIRC from a OpenBSD guy:
“We’ve never been fans of the GPL. V3 doesn’t change anything for us.”
Both licenses have their right to exist. If you don’t like it, just don’t use it. There’s no need to fight.
I think this is the main point of the letter:
“Against the backdrop of GPLv3, the stark difference between the BSD licensing philosophy and that of the Free Software Foundation are only too clear. Consider this quote from FSF founder Richard M. Stallman:
“It has been, essentially, sixteen years since GPL version 2 came out. We didn’t think it would be this long before we made the next version, and we’ll try to attend to future upgrade needs more quickly. We won’t wait more than a decade, this time.”
A GPL proponent might argue that a license for free software must be upgraded periodically since we cannot anticipate what new use models for free software might be developed that restrict freedom. The BSD license is as permissive as possible exactly because we cannot predict the future or to what beneficial purpose (commercial or otherwise) our software will be used. “
———————
Vendors that rely on GPL’ed software are putting the fate of their business at the whim of RMS. Any time that RMS sees someone using GPL software in a way not in accordance with his doctrine, he will alter the license. He’s proclaiming as much. Tivo, et al, should dump GPL software and instead use software whose license is not based on religion. There is nothing that Linux provides Tivo that BSD could not, and BSD does it without the religious mumbo-jumbo.
Edited 2007-09-01 00:44
“Vendors that rely on GPL’ed software are putting the fate of their business at the whim of RMS. Any time that RMS sees someone using GPL software in a way not in accordance with his doctrine, he will alter the license.”
False. If something has been released under GPL2, it can safely remain under GPL2, regardless of what RMS says. Unless the copyright holder keeps re-licensing their code under newer versions of GPL, RMS’s changes to the license won’t matter to the code in question.
“Tivo, et al, should dump GPL software and instead use software whose license is not based on religion.”
Both camps (BSD and GPL) have their own sets of fundamental agreed-upon beliefs regarding the source code which they devotedly follow . I just don’t see why one of them is more “religious” than the other.
“False. If something has been released under GPL2, it can safely remain under GPL2, regardless of what RMS says. Unless the copyright holder keeps re-licensing their code under newer versions of GPL, RMS’s changes to the license won’t matter to the code in question. “
What about software licensed under “GPL version 2 and later“? I keep seeing people giving differing interpretations as to what that means, even among GPL proponents.
For example, a few days ago there was an article on slashdot, where supposedly FSF is “positioning itself to sue Microsoft” to make their Novell/Suse vouchers bound under GPL3, and thus open up Microsoft patents to everyone for free. First, one would have to prove that issuing vouchers equates to software distribution, but let’s grant that for the sake of argument.
Now, in the comments thread, some said that the vouchers don’t fall under GPL3 because the software contained in a Suse distro is not GPL3. But if Suse began to include GPL3 software, then Microsoft would either have to cancel the voucher program, or keep issuing them as GPL3 vouchers.
Others said that since much of the software in Suse is licensed under “GPL2 and later” then that software already falls under GPL3, therefore the vouchers already fall under GPL3. Bruce Perens himself was arguing such in the slashdot comments. That essentially, “GPL2 and later” means that the software falls under GPL2 and all later versions combined (even if those versions have conflicts with each other), and a distributer must abide by all of the GPL versions >= 2.
But to the contrary, others argued that “GPL2 and later” means that the distributor can abide by any one of the versions >= 2 of GPL he chooses to, and disregard the others. That “GPL2 and later” means, “pick whichever version of GPL >= 2 that you want to abide by”, so MS could simply say that their vouchers are GPL2 vouchers even for the software in Suse that’s “GPL2 and later”. Those arguing this interpretation said that the first interpretation is unworkable for a license, since it would allow FSF to alter the license of code that is already in the field.
What’s your take on the meaning of “GPL2 and later”?
It doesn’t say GPL 2 and later. It says “GPL 2 or later”.
The fact you deliberately misquote the license proves you are either uninformed, ill informed, or simply a pain microserf. Considering your past I’m said to say everything indicated the third option.
“GPL 2 or later” means we can choose to use it under the GPL2 or – at our own whim – under a later version than version 2. But it is optional. The code can be used in GPL2-projects, GPL3-projects and GPL1537298243769-projects.
It doesn’t say GPL 2 and later. It says “GPL 2 or later”.
The fact you deliberately misquote the license proves you are either uninformed, ill informed, or simply a pain microserf. Considering your past I’m said to say everything indicated the third option.
You know, you could’ve answered the question without the insults. I don’t claim to be an expert on GPL. But OSS-guru Bruce Perens does, and here is just one of his comments from the slashdot discussion I referred to, were he uses the phrase “GPL2/GPL3 and later” multiple times:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=281957&cid=20388665
“All of the software that gives “GPL 2 and any later version” as its license is now optionally under GPL3, and new versions of Samba, LIBC, etc., will be “GPL 3 and any later version” and will be included in SuSE. So, Microsoft is obligated under GPL3 if SuSE accepts one coupon for a distribution that contains “GPL3 and later” software. Possibly MS is obligated for “GPL2 and later” software, although that is less clear.”
Here’s another of his comments:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=281957&cid=20391721
“But they are not legally able to strip off that “and any later version” language.”
Others in the same thread used the same “and later” language.
Now, you were real cute at putting forth personal insults against me, saying that it was a “fact that I deliberately misquoted the license” (in effect, calling me a liar/deceiver), and went on to personally attack me on the basis of that “fact”, when all I was doing was quoting what GPL-proponents were saying in slashdot. It’s very sad that your cohorts modded up you personal attack against me to a 5, which reflects as badly on them as it does on you. Now that I’ve demonstrated that my question was in earnest, and I was not “deliberately misquoting” a license, do you have the guts to retract your personal attack? Do you have the guts to make a public apology for your misguided public attack? Let’s see if you do.
Sorry, but your personal attack was extremely uncalled for. And those that modded your attack up should feel ashamed as well.
Edited 2007-09-01 20:52
It doesn’t matter what he’s quoted for. You should’ve known it was “or” instead of “and”.
Discussing a license you haven’t studied is not a wise thing to do. Nothing from my side is uncalled for. The point stands.
One shouldn’t quote from Slashdot. One should quote from the original source. Personally I don’t read Slashdot due to the many trolls and fanatics ruining the site.
You deliberately misquoted the license since you knowingly did NOT cite the license itself but merely a second-hand quote from a site with little or no credibility.
You won’t get an apology for my attack, because I don’t own you one. If you could prove the GPL says “and” then you can get an apology. Reading wrong information on Slashdot does not excuse you. Au contraire.
I might add that Bruce Perens has nothing to do with FSF. He has relations to OSI but not to FSF.
It’s like quoting Bill Gates for the content of the Apple EULA.
“What’s your take on the meaning of “GPL2 and later”?”
No, how about you respond to the main point of my comment — you know, the one you oh, so conveniently forgot to notice? Want me to refresh your all of sudden decrepit memory? Here we go:
Both camps (BSD and GPL) have their own sets of fundamental agreed-upon beliefs regarding the source code which they devotedly follow. I just don’t see why one of them is more “religious” than the other.
Perhaps you could provide us with a set of criteria you used to establish that GPL is more “religious” than BSD? I don’t know about the rest, but I sure would like to examine them. See if they smell of BS, for example.
“”What’s your take on the meaning of “GPL2 and later”?”
No, how about you respond to the main point of my comment — you know, the one you oh, so conveniently forgot to notice? Want me to refresh your all of sudden decrepit memory? Here we go:”
My “decrepit” memory? Is it simply impossible for an OSS advocate to make a point without personal insults?
Regarding your quibble over the use of the word “religion”, I already dealt with that in a response to butters. Go read that if you want to.
But let’s do a simple comparison.
Most religions have their “Satan”. GPL’s has its “Satan” (Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc). Most religions have a messianic-like figure. GPL has RMS. Most religions set forth the ideals of what constitutes morality. RMS says software must meet his definition of “free” in order to be “ethical”, and that closed-source software itself is “unethical” and that those that produce such software are “unethical”.
BDS has NONE of the characteristics that I mention above. Therefore, I regard GPL as being more “religious” than BDS.
Now, I noticed that YOU deliberately missed my point. I said that Tivo could use BSD and avoid GPL’s religious baggage. You don’t like the use of the word “religious”? Fine. I’ll rephrase: Tivo, et al, can use BSD and avoid the FSF/RMS baggage that accompanies GPL.
Now that that’s settled (good grief), why don’t you answer the question I directed to you? What is your take on the meaning “GPL2 and later”?
Edited 2007-09-01 21:08
“””
why don’t you answer the question I directed to you?
“””
Are you Molly Cieslinski, of Waggener Edstrom?
“Regarding your quibble over the use of the word “religion”, I already dealt with that in a response to butters. Go read that if you want to.
But let’s do a simple comparison.
Most religions have their “Satan”. GPL’s has its “Satan” (Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc). Most religions have a messianic-like figure. GPL has RMS. Most religions set forth the ideals of what constitutes morality.”
That is the funniest comment I have read for a long time. I would personally love you to stretch this analogy as much as possible. I’m dying to know where it will lead does Alan Cox get nailed to a cross!?
Most religions have their “Satan”.
Most religions deal with the supernatural concepts, such as Satan. It is not the case in this particular situation, which means that the rest of your analogy goes right out of the window. Please, learn what the world “religion” means in this specific case before you decide to use it.
Now, the insults you got were the insults you deserved. Stop behaving like an idiot, and I promise to stop treating you as one. Furthermore, the fact that you choose to concentrate on my insults so much makes me think that you are incapable of concentrating on my points. Remember what I told you about behaving like an idiot?
BDS has NONE of the characteristics that I mention above. Therefore, I regard GPL as being more “religious” than BDS.
Just because you disagree with certain provisions of a license does not give you the right to demonize it. I have asked you for some logical justification of your attitudes. All I’ve seen so far were improperly constructed analogies (“GPL = religion”) and cheap emotional appeals about “ethics”, none of which constitute valid logical argumentation.
Now that that’s settled (good grief), why don’t you answer the question I directed to you? What is your take on the meaning “GPL2 and later”?
My take is that the license itself talks only of “… or any later version”, and when it does, it says exactly what I said: nobody is forcing anyone to use future versions of GPL, which is why the BDS guy doesn’t know what he’s yapping about, and neither do you. Now, stop quoting questionable Slashdot posts in order to support your point of view, ’cause it just doesn’t wash. You gotta try harder next time.
A religion is based on sacred texts that remain constant while their interpretations evolve over time. A political party is based on a fundamental worldview reflected in policies that evolve over time.
Which of these animals most closely resembles the FSF?
The FSF has laid out a consistent theory on software freedom based on four requirements. They are really easy to understand and follow, but much tougher to codify within the framework of copyright law. The GPLv3 is an attempt to bring the policy closer to the theory in light of changes in reality. Yes, reality sometimes matters in politics and religion.
Frankly, your attack on religion is as troubling as those that use similar tactics to attack science. Just keep calling it mumbo-jumbo and hope people stop believing things that you find uncomfortable.
Here in the reality-based free software community, we don’t conflate principles with policies. When our policies aren’t protecting and reflecting our principles, we don’t weave an elaborate series of rationalizations about sticking to our guns. We launch a collaborative effort of unprecedented size and transparency to draft a better policy.
Perhaps you’ll be disappointed to recall that the GPLv3 was not handed down by God to the prophet RMS. It was created through an intensive process of public review and feedback over the course of about two years. Does that sound more like religion or politics?
First you say that FSF is about politics rather than religion. But then you claim that my “attack on religion” is troubling. Why would you be concerned with my supposed “attack on religion” if you claim that FSF is not about religion?
Most religions include moralistic judgements, and there is no software guru that’s more moralistic regarding software than RMS himself, who has gone so far as to say that closed software itself is “unethical”. GPL3 was crafted specifically to punish “wicked sinners” like Tivo and Novell/Microsoft, which used GPL2 in a “sinful” manner.
“Perhaps you’ll be disappointed to recall that the GPLv3 was not handed down by God to the prophet RMS.
You might want to inform RMS’s disciples of that fact.
*I’m* not “disappointed in that at all. I *know* that GPL3 wasn’t handed down by God. Whether it was handed down by someone who thinks that he *is* God (or at least God’s servant) is an open question, though. To be less glib, I’ll just say that while RMS’s followers might not regard GPL3 as the word of God, they do regard GPL3 as “infallible” and that it sets out the characteristics a piece of software must have in order to be considered “ethical”, much as Catholics (are supposed to) regard the Pope’s edicts as “infallible” and speaks to how one must be to be “moral”, and there is where the similarities to religion come into play. Do you regard GPL3 as infallible and/or that it sets rules by which to judge whether a piece of software is “ethical”?
RMS reminds me of George W Bush. Both believe that they are doing God’s work, so they refuse to even consider alternative points of view, or consider that they *gasp* might be wrong on a particular issue.
IMO, God doesn’t care about software licenses, and doesn’t regard software under license A as being more or less moral than software under license B. RMS, not God, has injected morals into software licensing, nobody can deny that.
But I’ll alter my terms, just for you.
Tivo, et al, should not use software that’s based on establishing a utopia. There is NO reason for Tivo and the like to use Linux over BSD. Hell, not having to deal with RMS’ moralistic judgements is reason enough to move to BSD.
Edited 2007-09-01 06:50
Why would you be concerned with my supposed “attack on religion” if you claim that FSF is not about religion?
Because freedom is contingent upon people being able to hold personal beliefs without being attacked for being different. It’s one thing to argue the merits of various belief systems. It’s entirely another thing to suggest that beliefs are wrong because they are different.
If you read back what you wrote, I don’t see any rational arguments against the GPL. All I see is a vague, rambling argument about how morality has no place in software licensing. May I ask why not?
I suppose you don’t have a problem with proprietary licenses, which basically take away all of your rights to do anything except use your copy of the software in approved ways. But a license that offers the right to share and improve software except in ways that infringe on others’ rights to do the same? That’s moralist, utopian, and/or religious mumbo-jumbo.
That’s like an anarchist arguing that a libertarian is a radical moralist for holding that his right to swing his fist stops at her nose.
Finally, there is a technical reason for why Tivo can’t easily switch to FreeBSD. There’s an extreme lack of video input support on FreeBSD compared to Linux. No V4L, no DVB, and as far as I can tell, no video over USB or Firewire either. FreeBSD video input seems to be limited to some cards based on a particular Conexant MPEG encoder. HD need not apply.
So if FreeBSD is looking to court consumer electronics vendors like Tivo, they have a lot of work to do to bring their driver support up to speed.
I’m sorry but you are wrong here. The GPL itself doesn’t state anything about RMS or future versions. If a developer releases software under the GPL vXY only, the license will ever stay the same and never alter (Linux does it that way).
If the developer — what many OSS projects do — releases her software under “GPL vXY or later”, it’s the licensee’s choice. She could use the software under GPL vXY or under a newer version.
Please mind that, as soon as the licensee chose to use a specific license, that license will never be altered, until both copyright holder _and_ licensee agree to switch to another license.
You are right that from the licensee’s point of view, GPL can never beat BSD. The only reason for a licensee to use software only available under GPL would be that there is no equivalent available in a less restrictive license. Linux again is a prominent example there. I don’t want to say it is superiour to *BSD, it just provides different features.
The GPL and FSF are based on moral principles, not blind fate. But I can see how some can use “religion” to get those confused.
And to hell with the vendors. The community wrote this software. Their respective authors chose GPL. And it’s their authors that will pick GPLv3, if they feel like it. The vendors can take it as such and agree to whatever GPL version the authors picked, or they can get their software elsewhere. The community owes nothing to the commercial market. Those community members that get payed by vendors to work on GPL stuff more than make up for it by adding and maintaining support for the vendors’ hardware.
Yeah, and replying on MS software is so much safer, ne?
If you’re not being paid to advocate MS/dis the GP, then you must have a lot of free time on your hands.
There’s a lot of misinformation in these posts.
1. There’s already a BSD userland. All commands such as ls, find, sed, cp, tar, vi, sh, make, etc. are developed by the BSD people, they are not the GNU versions.
BTW, Mac OS X also uses this userland programs.
2. What the BSDs don’t have is their own compiler. There’s no BSD cc (although there are some BSD-licensed C compilers, but they aren’t in the same league as GCC).
Apart from GCC there’s not much more GPL software on the BSD world. Come to think about it I think the only GPL software that ships with FreeBSD are GCC and groff (maybe also grep?)
Edited 2007-09-01 01:15
And KDE is not under the GPL?
And KDE is not under the GPL?
KDE is licensed under GPL/LGPL/BSDL/MIT/Artistic/etc.
http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
GPL is not “only true” license out there…
That’s true alright, but completely irrelevant here. Just another typical religious reaction.
The question was not if some parts were under a different license, but just if some was under the GPL.
I’m looking forward to see *BSD released as public domain.
KDE is not part of the base system, it’s a 3rd party package.
Edited 2007-09-03 07:53
In that case I really don’t see what the problem is. You say that GPL already doesn’t have any influence over the BSD distributions. Then why do they protest against it so much?
Because of the compiler? What difference does that make? Last I heard, simply using the GCC to compile stuff doesn’t bind you to the GPL in any way.
“In that case I really don’t see what the problem is. You say that GPL already doesn’t have any influence over the BSD distributions. Then why do they protest against it so much?
Because of the compiler? What difference does that make? Last I heard, simply using the GCC to compile stuff doesn’t bind you to the GPL in any way.”
The bottom line is, and defiantly for the desktop. The open source landscape is made up of many licenses GPL just happen to be the most common *copyleft* one. If you run an embedded platform or a server you can use an awful lot of BSD stuff but once you get beyond that the argument falls apart, personally I think its lovely that both we have such a dynamic landscape. I’d rather both groups focused on the Desktop and on gaining Market share from Microsoft anything else is just bluster.
Exactly! I use OpenBSD.. The kernel, The userland and the C library/headers are all BSD or equivalently licenced.
Yes, binutils and GCC are used.. but I don’t consider those two elements the entire userland.
Replacements are possible, TenDRA/Nils Weller’s C compiler and The Amsterdam Compiler Kit are all released under a BSD-like licence, They could be augmented by BSD developers if “required“.. YASM a BSD licenced assembler can also interpret AT&T syntax assembly files.
BSD existed even before GNU, I’m sure it would do quite alright without a few of their tools.
Edited 2007-09-01 01:32
GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope — the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL’d, we cannot get it back.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070901041657
That’s the truth! So the GPL is abusive against open source and freedom. Just hypocrites …
First of all, it’s not that you cannot get it back, is that you won’t.
Second, I don’t see what you’re complaining about. The BSD license allows people to do that. It’s how you wanted it. It’s part of that “complete freedom” you tout around. If you didn’t want that to happen you should’ve said something in the license terms.
Oh, you didn’t but now want to complain anyway about how people use BSD software? What are you, a 5yr old?
Edited 2007-09-01 19:19
The fact is that mixing GPL and BSD licensed code violates GPL. One can’t apply GPL restrictions to BSD licensed code. No one needs to even listen to if she/he tries. GPL says that all the code linked to GPLed code is GPLed. But, it can not happen, because the part of the code is under BSD license and that is sometihing that can not be changed, unles author agrees.
So, removing BSD license is a criminal offense, and linking it to GPL code as it is is violating GPL. The conclusion is that it is in best interest of GPL people to stay away from BSD licensed code. It is viral to them.
>First of all, it’s not that you cannot get it back, is that you won’t. <
They can’t get it back without changing their license to a less free license or getting all contributers to the GPLed code to allow the relicensing. Which is exactly the same as they can’t get it back.
if BSD did care about taking code they would be using the gpl or adding clausses.
It’s funny when people say hey take my code i dont care hide it or whatever and then they start bitching about stealing code.
I’ve enjoyed the recent attacks(sic) on the GNU community, and I use GNU exactly like Theo does…to include Linux, simply because its cemented the relationship between Linus’ followers and the FSF or open-source vs Free software. That Linus seems to spend so much of his time destroying.
I’ve gained a great deal of respect for BSD *developers* who in respect particularly with the comments regarding BSD license abuse, and it comes across strongly when they talk about PD that there interest is in the code *not* the license.
Its interesting the comments regarding Theo and Stallman being criticized interchangeably. What people *should* understand is that they are acting like leaders…and have a strong belief(sic) in their license, and thats the way it should be, otherwise why should *anyone* else. Its why I can not see the Microsoft open-source(sic) licenses make any headway. Simply because becuase they don’t eat their own food.
Its hard to understand licensing of BSD software when the main advocates are Vista users. I would love to know what *motivates* them. I can understand if your paid. If it is a *real* threat to there platform for choice its *long* term, and here at the very least the transition should to those *interested* in computing, not painful but enjoyable, CV building, and what must in many cases be a welcome change.
The other striking thing is this.
Its in bold by Oliver, its one quote of many that have come from this…is anyone else confused by this. I’m frankly in awe. The *main* difference between GPL and BSD at the end of the day is its copyleft properties. GPL enforces sharing of code…BSD doesn’t, you can put BSD in a binary for heavens sake, and share nothing. All this does is show a weakness in BSD that BSD developers *want*. I’m astonished that they dare bring this up, as everytime I see it I think I couldn’t argue the case for GPL as well as this.
The final thing and it should be is dual licensing does not mean what I thought it meant. I know there are lots of people putting their views across on the *legal* issue, but the bottom line is they do not work as you would expect. In fact the whole argument which is reinforced by the comment above is that anything licensed under BSD even when it is dual licensed is still BSD. Its crackers. I’m as lost now as when I started reading comments on it.
“””
“””
Oh, come on! Linus is interested in code. If GNU fundies would stop spamming LKML and trying to use it to further their own political agenda, Linus wouldn’t have to waste his time explaining his position repeatedly. He actually doesn’t say much on the topic until people show up at his doorstep demanding a statement.
And of course, every word he utters on the topic becomes the subject of a few dozen editorial opinion pieces the next day.
Although I am a GPL fan, I agree that the “theft” of BSD code by GPL projects is a bit distasteful. But the BSD allows that. If software authors don’t like it, they should have considered the license for their code more carefully. If the appropriation of their code by GPL projects is the problem, the solution is quite simple. Revise the license to prohibit the code’s use in a copylefted project.
Edit: An addendum. When it comes to divisiveness, RMS was the first to draw a distinction between OSS and FS. He fired the first salvos… was ignored at first… but kept firing them until he had created an actual rift.
Edited 2007-09-01 17:22
“Oh, come on! Linus is interested in code. If GNU fundies”
Thats my point Linus is a GNU fundie!? thats what Theo says. Thats the point.
“RMS was the first to draw a distinction between OSS and FS”
RMS is 100% consistent in his views whether you agree with them or not, but its a lie to say that the attacks on the FSF by Linus have not been *politically * motivated or that Linus did not have the first pop over GPL3. I believe he threw his tantrum after being ignored.
What I find distasteful is that *you* who neither wrote the code, lie about the *possible* *copyright* infringement, or that steps haven’t been taken to rectify the situation. When the situation with dual licensees having read stupidly complex. The simple fact that code that on the surface stipulates an either or both…and that makes sense.
Whats *sickening* is that many developers who work with both code *dual license* becuase the want *their* code included in both projects simply because thats what *they* want, these people are not *choosing* a side which is silly at best.
BTW love the emotive language. Especially the *theft* and *steal*
“””
“””
I guess I don’t understand your point then.
“””
but its a lie to say that the attacks on the FSF by Linus have not been *politically * motivated or that Linus did not have the first pop over GPL3.
“””
My perception is that Linus has little interest in politics. He’ll answer you on a political matter if you prod him enough.
RMS has been working hard on creating a rift between OS and FS. He began that years before the first draft of GPLv3 was written.
“””
“””
I have not commented on any issues of possible copyright infringement.
“””
“””
I put the word “theft” in quotes. I did not use the word “steal”.
sbergman26 wrote:
–“I put the word “theft” in quotes. I did not use the word “steal”.”
and how is it “theft”? the licence says that it is OK to use the code and not give back. when people raise the issue that people can take BSD licenced code, place it in a propriety program, improve on it and not give back, the BSD advocates says that this is just fine and that this is what ‘real free’ code is all about. but when someone does this and instead of keeping his improvements propriety, licences them under GPL then all of a sudden “it’s just not fair!”. talk about hypocrites.
and it get’s even more illogical when you consider that if BSD developers would want to add improvements from GPL licenced code, it’s alot easier to reverse engineer from source code which is not even an option when it comes to propriety code.
I have nothing against BSD, and I think the people who code for free and say others can use their efforts without asking for anything in return are extremely generous. however, that spirit is not evident amongst the hypocrites who pretend to carry their torch here on OSNews.
“””
“””
Indeed. I agree. That’s why I put the word in quotes.
Most people who release their work under a BSD license seem to be OK with their choice of license. Theo demands that people give back more than the license requires. (And, perhaps, needs to rethink his choice of license.) And many who don’t have any code at all to license do the same. Then again, many GPL zealots, who have never written a line of code in their lives, but have been taken in by the idea that end users, who have never contributed to anything but flame wars, believe that they possess some God-given inalienable rights to other people’s work.
I respect the copyrights and licensing terms for all the software that I use. I respect the fact that people have worked hard to make the software available. If I am unwilling to abide by the terms, I don’t use the software. But I respect their right to license as they see fit… or perhaps not to license at all if that is their wish.
If an author releases under a license which they later regret having used… well… that has to be handled on a case by case basis. But my advice is pretty standard: Think more carefully about your licensing next time.
This article basically addresses the vendors who are not longer able to use GNU based systems because of GPLv3. They can find everything they need if they move to BSD system with much more friendly license.
That is simply true. I’ve abandoned Linux after irrational FSF response to Novell-Microsoft deal. I’ve been using FreeBSD instead, and there is no reason to miss GNU based system at all. The only situation when I need another OS is when I have project that involves MS SQL server, and there is no way Linux could help me with it.
So, yes, whoever have any GPL related issue can move to BSD and carry on with their business without the problem.
The fact that the GPL3 makes it impossible to implement government specifications in software seems like a real oversight. I understand (though don’t necessarily agree with) completely limiting commercial ‘sealing’ of hardware, but as far as I can understand, it was to eliminate anti-competitive behaviours. If it makes it harder for vendors to create products using GPL software at all (such as the inability to incorporate new patches, even for security), then I think GPL loses. How hard would it be to have just thrown in an exemption for when there are specific government guidelines as to expected behaviour?