“This page isn’t here to debate whether OpenSource Software(OSS) is high quality or not. The majority of programmers already know that OSS is responsible for the bulk of today’s most superior software. In addition, BSD licensed software is known to be generally even Higher in quality than most other types of OSS. This page is here to explain how BSD and similar licenses hurt the OSS community more than they can ever help it, and why developers should use GNU licenses or similar instead.” Read the editorial at FreeWebs. Our Take: Yeah… right… 😛
How BSD Hurts OpenSource
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The article claims that the two major requirements for OSS to succeed are:
1) OSS must not restrict the usage or modification of the software.
2) Modifications to OSS must also remain Open Source, if it is redistributed.
However, #2 clearly contradicts #1. By requiring modifications to remain Open Source, you have inherently restricted modification of the software. I think the author seriously needs to reread his own writings.
Ya know what hurts OSS even more than BSD and similar licenses…GNU zealots with ridiculous arguments
hehe, agreed!
…this is just more FUD from the GPL crowd. The poster above hits it right on, requiring the end-users of your code to release their product under L/GPL makes your code less free.
The author notes in passing that BSD code is generally higher-quality than other OSS code, and claims that’s because “proprietary corporations” fund it, taking the best for their own use–but ignores the fact that, by definition, that same high-quality code is now free for general use under the BSD license! The BSD license in effect causes closed-source companies to donate code to open-source, if you consider that their donations to BSD projects actually make possible code that otherwise couldn’t have been written!
No matter how you look at it, the BSD license is more open&free than the GNU license, because of the very simple fact that it allows more. period.
Also, GNU licensed projects can use BSD licensed code without any restrictions. But that’s not true the other way around. The GNU license is, in a way, a parasitic license because if I want to use a small GNU-licensed component in some otherwise BSD-licensed software, I have to GPL it…
Interesting read: http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
Even if BSD did hurt OSS, just consider how much BSD has done for CS as a whole. Certain TCP/IP-stacks spring to mind just to mention a lesser, but well known example.
I suggest that Stephen Pinker takes a look at
http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/index….
No matter how you look at it, the BSD license is more open&free than the GNU license, because of the very simple fact that it allows more. period.
In my opinion the BSD license is more free, but it can be looked at differently. Does forcing future open-ness restrict freedoms? I think so. Its really just two different idealogical views, one crowd thinks the software should be free for any use, and another thinks it should be free as long as you are willing to use it in a way acceptable to them (GPL) (and only if you wish to redistribute).
Unfortunately, the GPL advocates have been kind enough to take a perfectly fine word, with its own connatations and implications already attached, “free” and have tried to attach their own definition. The reason you see “free as in….xyz” is because GPL is not free in the common sense of free, you have to explain how it is free. It is not guarenteed to be free of cost, or freely available, just that the source will be forced to remain under the GPL and available to end-users. I think this is a PR attempt to emphasize the “free as in cost” (which is not guarenteed) to the masses.
Just my thoughts. Feel free to share any corrections- no one is perfect.
The BSD license doesn’t take sides in open source vs. commercial products, while the GPL does (like rabbit says, it’s “parasitic”). The author seems to think that not being pro-open source is the same thing as being anti-open source. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
http://zoso.sf.net/
Okay that was a shameless plug for my open source project that is in very very very early stages of planning and development. (It’s not in useable form yet, and won’t be for a long, long time.)
Anyway, I use the BSD license because it offers TRUE FREEDOM not GNU FREEDOM. What I mean by that is that people are able to use the code I produce in whatever manner they see fit, so long as they acknowledge my authorship, don’t sue me, and don’t use me as an endorsement for a derived work. I think these are more than reasonable, since I expect recognition for my hard work, and do not want legal action taken against me.
If a company takes pieces of my source code or the entirety of it, make a few improvements that I don’t feel like making or am unable to make, and then make a commercial product out of it, all the more power to them. I will be happy because people are using my code. My feelings are that the only reason to open source software is to increase the number of people able to use it.
In addition, the BSD license is non-viral in nature, so that it is compatible with almost any other license, while still covering my butt from potentional legal action. If you want to add my source code to L/GPL licensed project, go for it, it’s perfectly legal, just retain my copyright and license conditions in the source code and you’re all set.
In addition, I am non-political in nature, and as far as I can tell, the only real advantage to L/GPL software is that it makes a political statement, if you are into that sort of thing.
-bytes256
… the worlds tinyest violin…. *snor*
An analogy that I like is that BSD licensing is like charity. You’re giving away your code to anyone, and they’re free to do with it as they please. Whereas GNU is like socialism, forcing everyone to share everything with everyone else. Somehow, the former seems more appealing to me.
This is the exact thing I dislike about this particular niche of the GPL/OSS crowd. The spreading of indoctrination (this is the best choice for you – we foam at the mouth, and so must you), FUD (if you go any other way, you lend yourself to the evil corporate closed license environment, ala Microsoft), and BS (this particular article).
So I have more freedom with these GPL, Mozilla, GNU, and other flavored licenses. At least I thought I did. Now someone is going to tell me what license I should use because I am too stupid to decide for myself — and I may make the bad decision of choosing the evil BSD license. Sure.
While I don’t really care what license people use for their project, I would personally use GPL or LGPL. I just feel that releasing it under the BSD license causes theft. This isn’t really an issue of freedom because you could argue this either way.
I feel that If I am going to spend hours of my time working on something for free, then no company has the right to take it change a couple features, close it up and make a profit. This does NOT help the community. This leads to multiple closed forks of a piece of software whereas under the GNU license, everyone will contribute back to the original piece of software, giving you one piece of software with all the contributions.
This isn’t about money, it’s about the fact that I don’t care who uses my software as long as you play fair. To me having a company make my code proprietary is not playing fair.
I’ve often noticed that the crowd here at OSNews misses the very subtle differences in “freedom” in different liscences. The BSD-like lisences offer the freedom for the *developer* to do mostly as they wish. The GPL lisence, on the other hand, promotes the idea the the *software* itself should be free, as in free to evolve without being restricted by proprietarity. Now, whether it is more important to an code’s author that the software is free or other developers are free is a personal choice. Personally, I do prefer the GPL because it levels the playing field for everyone. Everyone who distributes the code must follow the same rules and behave as a member of the community. Notice, I did not say “uses the code” because the GPL places no restrictions on use, only distribution.
If you think large and small corporations out there use better judgement before ripping off GPL software vs. BSD software you are seriously living in a dream-world.
Anything that gets the job done is fair game. That 15-liner license clause at the top of the code gets deleted quicker than you can blink. I’ve seen a number of places do this. In fact, some of these bozos are so callous they don’t even care about removing any tell-tale copyright or license information blocks.
While I don’t really care what license people use for their project, I would personally use GPL or LGPL. I just feel that releasing it under the BSD license causes theft. This isn’t really an issue of freedom because you could argue this either way.
I feel that If I am going to spend hours of my time working on something for free, then no company has the right to take it change a couple features, close it up and make a profit. This does NOT help the community. This leads to multiple closed forks of a piece of software whereas under the GNU license, everyone will contribute back to the original piece of software, giving you one piece of software with all the contributions.
This isn’t about money, it’s about the fact that I don’t care who uses my software as long as you play fair. To me having a company make my code proprietary is not playing fair.
Uh? I don’t see any of point in here. When, the author want to use the BSD license and allow anyone to use the code for free. Therefore, it doesn’t mean it’s steal because this author doesn’t care and is giving for freeware like donate/give it away to any one.
If you don’t want anyone to steal the code, then don’t use the damn BSD license, bozo!
If thats the way you feel, release the code under GPL. If the code is released under BSD and subsequently included in a proprietary product, it is not stealing. The BSD license stiplulates that its ok to do this. For it to be called stealing, the derived work would have to violate the terms of the copyright.
No comment, I agreed!
The students at the University of California Berkely who developed the UNIX system into BSD were acting under a system of free associations. In those days Computer Science was still a science. Mistakes were allowed. Discussion was encouraged. Understanding processes even through methods such as reverse engineering were not repressed. It was in such an environment that a truely remarkable achievement was made, namely the creation of the BSD operating system.
The situation is not the same today. Over obsessiveness with terms such as “intellectual property” have damaged our society greatly. Things such as playful cleverness are no longer allowed. Too many people are concerned with getting something from nothing. Trust me I know this because I work in the social services field. It is virtually non-existed in society (USA) today to even consider the effects of ones actions on other people. We have the adopted the philosophy of “pursuing wealth forgetting all but self” mentality.
I do understand the arguement that the BSD-style licenses are more free than the GPL. It is really a matter of interpretation and what one defines as “free”. To me this is all about what type of society you want to live in. Is it more important for someone to get a monetary reward for some marginal development that they add to existing source code, or should that code be available for the benefit of all technological developments that society may produce. I choose the greater good of society over the freedom of someone to take code and develop it for profit. Thats why I respect the GPL. In the end every software author has the choice (not in corporate environments) of what type of license they would like to use, and it is up to individuals to decide if they want to support software obstructionism and steal copywritten software, or pay for something for some misunderstood notion of “official support” and “user friendliness”.
gpl = free as long as you let stallman pull your strings
bsd = free as in freedom
One point, the GPL does not preclude developing GPL code for profit. I merely enforces the notion that even for-profit developers must play by the same rules as everyone else. This enforces the ability of the software to mature and evolve in any direction that is necessary.
One problem, the GPL is not about Richard Stallman, as Linux is not about Linux Torvalds. Yes, they are the originators and often the final word on their own software, but both the GPL and Linux have evolved away from needing these individuals.
From what I can tell, most if not ALL of the LGPL software listed on the FSF site:
http://www.gnu.org/search/fsd-search.py?q=lgpl
has benefitted from the prior existence of BSD software, directly or not. This is just with LGPL’d software, not even mentioning any other OSS “approved” licensed software (apache, bind, sendmail, etc.)
To say as a blanket statement that BSD hurts OSS without also mentioning how it has HELPED (and continued to help) the development of OSS is not only disingenuous, but reckless, especially given the nature of this issue to be easily misunderstood.
I think Mr. Pinker might have a better case if there was some show of harm in his essay, instead of the vilification of BSD as some enemy of OSS. The point is well taken that proprietary software can benefit from BSD’d code, but so can OSS, and has, some can argue, even more so than proprietary software.
It has been both an enemy and an excellent friend of OSS.
Saying that either the GPL or BSD license is “more free” is ludicrous. They are simply differently free. The BSD license grants complete freedom to anyone to distribute the code however they wish, including the ability to deny others the same freedoms. The GPL actively protects the freedoms of the end user by preventing a developer from denying them the right to modify and distribute the software.
From different perspectives either license is arguably more free, and in a practical sense both licenses have their own uses. For instance, Linux owes much of its success to the fact that it is released under the GPL, whereas if the various Ogg codecs had been released under the same license they would never have even the slightest chance of widespread adoption. The “GPL vs. BSD war” is meaningless. It’s just another endless argument maintained by 13 year old wankers with nothing better to do.
.. Julius Caesar, Shakespeare
Quite frankly nowadays I reckon Caesar was wrong. He should have surrounded himself with people who believe in nothing.
It’s zealots – people who believe they are right and the opposition is wrong/corrupt/immoral – that are the biggest danger to any society and that includes techy society. The intellectual level of this article is no higher than the Ballmer/Gates anti-GPL rabies.
In fact it’s worse since even Microsoft acknowledges the strengths of OSS – this pile of crap is just an out and out assault on all software companies, including the honest and decent and skilled companies that don’t rip off their users and that do provide good quality code.
It’s just plain bad
Wow. This whole article is like the most puerile of slashdot trolls.
From the debatable yet highly self-serving opener “…already know that OSS is responsible for the bulk of today’s most superior software”, through the oh-so-political-campaign-literature highlighting of ‘key’ phrases, Stephen Pinker serves only to alienate yet more of the rational public, pushing the rest of the world further away from the hardcore GNU crowd.
Maybe this is a good thing.
>…this is just more FUD from the GPL crowd.
No, they just preach their ideology again.
>GPL makes your code less free.
What does ‘free’ really mean anyway?
‘free’ to exploit the poor
or ‘free’ of poverty
‘free’ to have an abortion
or ‘free’ to live (the baby in this case)?
‘free’ to shake your ass or ‘free’ from
satanic seduction?
Everyone is fighting for ‘freedom’ Osama Bin Laden, Chirac, Kim Il Sung, Hussein, Stallman and good ol’ George of course.
The only thing that seperates them is how they define ‘freedom’.
‘Discussion’ between different ideological camps is pointless. BSD software is not “more free”, just like GPL sofware isn’t. Because ‘free’ is purely a matter of interpretation.
From a GNUian point of view ‘free from suckers who want to close my sources’ is real freedom. From a BSDian its not.
There is no point in fighting flame wars over that.
At least in the OSS world they don’t throw bombs at each other (ok, maybe mail bombs *g).
I agree that the BSD license is more “free” than the gnu license. I also agree that BSD license does do alot of damage to the OSS movement. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. I believe that a democracy gives me less freedom than anarchy does, but (in the long run) anarchy does more to hurt freedom than it does to help it.
Makeing the case that the BSD license is more free does NOTHING to support/detract from the statement that “bsd hurts the OSS movement.” I am not trying to tell ANYONE that they should use this/that license… its your software do what you want with it. What I saying is that the BSD license is not designed to help open source software (although it often does) while the GPL is designed to help OSS.
Strid…
BSD has helped OSS in SO MANY more ways than it has hurt. someone please prove me wrong.
abcde: I don’t understand how you can associate the bsd license with stealing. I view BSD licensed software as a gift for other developers and users alike.
If you (abcde) feel that bsd = stealing, then by all means never purchase anyone any birthday, christmas, chaunakah, or whatever type of gift. Using your standards of gift giving, the moment someone accepts that gift from you, they are essentially stealing it from you. You don’t want them stealing your gift do you? You took time to shop for it, it probably cost you fuel in driving to the store to purchase it. It should belong to you, you, you!! Right? After all, giving = stealing right?
abcde, you’re probably now saying that it’s not the same. It is really. BSD licensed software is meant to be given away for free and without restrictions and used for whatever purpose? What better gift than uttermost freedom?
Okay, so actually the BSD license isn’t all the free. It limits us from suing the developers ass for all he’s worth for their software breaking something. Damn BSD developers, why don’t you let us sue you?
Just kidding.
I think BSD software is great. I use it on a daily basis. I also use GPL’d software. It works just as well. Having a choice in licenses is good. Why must we rant about which is “better”. I think it all depends on what your goals are. You wouldn’t use a hammer to drive a screw would you?
“BSD licensed software is generally among the highest in quality when it comes to OSS. This fact, in turn, makes the situation even worse.”
What percentage of OSS code was contributed from GPL zealots, BSD style license hackers and paid programmers.
I would imagine that most of the OSS code was contributed by paid programmers with GPL zealots making up the majority of the remaining lines of code. Because they are so zealotous.
But that says nothing of the quality of the code. But don’t forget that a lot of the GNU code existed before corporate interests became a major part of the movement.
It would be very interesting to see a real factual comparison.
>What percentage of OSS code was contributed from GPL zealots, BSD style license hackers and paid programmers.
Don’t know but the percentage doesn’t count anyway. Its the importance of the contributed software that counts.
Without Stallman, without GNU parts FreeBSD is worth as much as a piece of shit – because you can’t compile it. You can’t build software for it etc. GCC (originally written by Stallman) is the single most important piece of OSS software IMO
GNU doesn’t need BSD, BSD vitally depends on GNU.
Or to put it differently: You can’t build a pure BSD system but you can build a pure GNU system.
Bull
You don’t need a compiler on a system at all – My Windows 2000 box doesn’t have one – and you certainly don’t need to use an OSS compiler to produce OSS software.
What was the first usable version of GCC compiled with ? :-p
http://libtorrent.sourceforge.net/
(Shameless plug as well, thanks for the idea bytes256!)
It should be apparent that this is a library. Were I to use the GPL, it would require that all applications that linked against the library were also GPL.
Now, why not the LGPL? Well, what if someone liked the underlying implementation contained within the library, but felt constrained by the provided API, and changed the library to better integrate with their codebase? Under the LGPL, this would require redistribution of the modified source code, including any enhancements that might give them an edge over their competators were this a commercial project.
This is the reason why commercial use of GPL/LGPL software is often lacking. The GPL provides a great defense for releasing commercial software as open source, however it greatly hinders the adoption of OSS software.
The crux of this argument is: if there exists well-written, BSD-licensed code to accomplish some non-trivial functionality, what company in their right mind would waste the time reimplementing what they can simply use thanks to the BSD license? An example of this is OpenSSH… look at programs like UltraEdit which now support robust scp support, thanks to the BSD licensed OpenSSH codebase.
What’s really stopping someone from building a BSD licensed C compiler? In fact maybe someone should do such a thing, just to free people from even further zealotry.
In addition, one could argue that GNU is more harmful than BSD , operating system-wise, because it embraces and extends the traditional UNIX and Posix specifications, thus causing careless Linux programmers to produce un-portable code.
My point is, there are often several ways of looking at things, but neither license is more harmful than the other, and to a certain degree, the ecosystem needs both types of licenses, otherwise they wouldn’t even exist.
-bytes256
um.. I hate to burst your bubble, but BSD doesn’t “vitally” depend on GNU. gcc is not the only compiler there is. nor is it the only free one.
I’m all for GNU, but let’s not make stuff up to further its cause. And just because a machine can’t compile software doesn’t make it a ‘piece of shit’. None of the bsd boxes that run yahoo have compilers on them, and they’re worth plenty to the fuction of that business.
this of course is besides the main point, which is that BSD does NOT hurt OSS, despite what the article says.
Although I do appreciate the freedom that the BSD license provides, I don´t like at all the collateral effects of it. If MegaCorp wants to take some BSD code, improve it and then sell it, that´s fine. What pisses me off is the fact that the developers of the original code don´t receive a dime from it and MegaCorp doesn´t even need to disclose those improvements their developers did.
Nobody gains from that except MegaCorp itself: nor the developers and not the community either. MegaCorp didn´t needed to pay nothing to get quality and extensively tested code.
GPL might have that viral effect, but at least, it levels the play field as someone here already has pointed out. MegaCorp is allowed to make profit from GPL software, improving it for it own needs if wants to, but it have to give back something to the community where it got that fine piece of code for free.
look at FREEBSD, OPENBSD and NETBSD three of the best operating systems out there and they are all released under the BSD license. how do they hurt OSS??
From now on, GNU software is not allowed to use code from BSD-licensed products.
Yeah, right. If this guy really cares about the greater OSS cause, why is he so insistent on using the GNU licenses? The purpose of the GNU project is to consolidate as much software as possible under one name. Sorta like, say, a monopoly.
>You don’t need a compiler on a system at all
But you need it to compile the system. And I doubt that many OSS freaks could live without a C compiler. No more building from source at home..
>gcc is not the only compiler there is. nor is it the only free one.
Is it possible to compile any BSD with any other compiler?
NO!
If Stallman would disallow the *BSD projects to use the FSF compiler today they (the BSDians) would be royally screwed. FreeBSD, NetBSD etc. development would be frozen.
They could no longer compile their own sources. Especially NetBSD which depends on the ultra-portable GCC would be hit really hard. I think one could say that the project would die that day.
Point one: To whoever said that the term “free” would be used as some kind of PR abuse, that’s indeed wrong. It is indeed nothing but a flaw in the english language that “free” is understood the same way as “gratis”. If someone could come up with an adjective which means free as in freedom (d’oh, doesn’t free come from freedom anyway?), I would be happy to know it.
In other languages this isn’t really a problem, for example in Germany, when we talk about “freie Software” that’s pretty different from talking about “kostenlose Software” (Software free of cost). In fact, we usually use the english term “Freeware” because it just doesn’t mean the same in german.
Point two: Ranting about weither BSD is helping or hurting OSS is really silly! It’s more than obvious that it’s simply helping _both_, isn’t it? Both protected free software (GPL) and protected proprietary software ran rip off unprotected free software (BSD). I don’t see why this is hurting anyone more than the other. If you don’t care weither free software or proprietory software is “winning” and just want to see good software (like OS X), then BSD is a good choice for sure.
Of course that doesn’t include me.
It is also silly though to argue weither GPL or BSD is “more free”. Both are completely free and just differ in weither they protect their “freeness” or not. If you actually want to compete against proprietory software, you _have_ to protect your software from becoming proprietory software (isn’t that obvious), but if you don’t want to compete, then it doesn’t matter.
Personaly I don’t like GPL license because it forces software to be free. I don’t feel that you can achieve freedom with force and there are many historical examples of this. All known to me revolutions for freedom ended up with a dictatorship.
IMHO, it’s much more likely that you can make someone or something “free” by educating and explaining what does “free” mean, how you can use it and how you and others can benefit from it. And I greatly appreciate what Stallman and FSF do to promote “free” software.
However, I don’t think that GPL itself is a good thing. As it was already said, it’s a known and in some sense a common problem that GPL’ed code is used in non-GPL’ed software. It’s very simple to do and it’s very difficult to prove such a violation to the judge. On the other hand, I’ve seen companies submitted changes to BSD licensed code even when nobody asked them to do so. It is a company or particular person descision and only company or person can decide which way it’ll go. And I believe that giving information about benefits from sharing code is much better than frightening people with FSF lawyers.
Anyone who thinks the GPL license creates Free software has a seriously jealous heart. The definition of property defies freedom, to “own” something and have selective “rights” on it, means it is not “free” to anyone else. Intelectual property is the opposite of freedom, because we have taken a non-scarce resource (knowledge) and applied scare resource rules to it (ownership, stealing, etc). Can you imagine what the world will be like if this continues, soon, the only free knowledge will be that known to those dead 75 years ago (copyright law), anything created since then is “owned” knowledge … or at least this is how it is going in software.
BSD license is basically a self-protecting public-domain license. It delcares that a piece of software you have written is free from as many intelecual property rules as possible in our current society (we must protect ourselves from litigation and fraud) … it declares that you are given up any rights the legal system has tried to force on you, and instead giving the code to any and all persons, for any and all purposes … like a mother who loves her child no matter what, you are making no judgements about those who come after you.
The GPL license is also a great license, but it is completely socialist. It’s sole purpose is to create a body of software that cannot be used for the gain of the few against the gain of the many. This is equality, NOT freedom. There is nothing free about the GPL … in fact it is so un-free, that the LGPL had to be created to convince anyone to even use GCC or any GPL product which has a library of usefull code. At the component level the GPL basically says, you cannot even make use of our component library, unless we may make use of yours … this is not freedom, this is more like a treaty … we agree to give you rights, if and only if you reciprocate. There is no generosity here, no selfless sacrifice, only he same exact mentality that leads corperatations to establish large cross-licensing patent agreements, so that 5-10 company consortiums can work together to keep another set of competitors out of the game … that is what the GPL is about, fighting the war against closed source software, and preventing them from having the benifit of your munitions. If this is your cause, then the GPL is for you, but the only real answer to that war, is fighting against intelectual property legislation … and a lot of people really just don’t believe in that level of freedom for software (it may not be impossible to make a living writing GPL software … but it is definately a whole lot harder than writing proprietary software).
So why don’t GPL people quit talking about freedom, and choose words which don’t mislead so many … perhaps: equality, public-property, socialist … whatever … but NOT freedom … and not gifts, or charity, or anything else which impliese the author is giving anything away … because they are not, they are rigidly restricting it’s use, just like proprietary NDAs have done for decades.
Actually it is possible to compile BSD with other compilers, well with the exception of some poorly coded third-party userland apps, as far as I know, the BSD kernels are all pretty much ANSI C, and those few parts that aren’t, could be ported to another compiler within a month or two, I mean hell, you could port BSD to MSVC in theory and cross-compile it if you so desired.
The BSD license negates the legal necsessity for “clean room” implementations. It effectively leep frogs the process of wheel re-invention and allows for the immediate adding of value. Weither such value is then released as source or binary-only is ofcourse the perogative of those responsible for the adding of said value.
As a previous posted correctly stated: “this pile of crap is just an out and out assault on all software companies, including the honest and decent and skilled companies that don’t rip off their users and that do provide good quality code.”
Although there are undoublty many exceptions ( ironically the BSD license affirms this ), the degree of code quality, as added value, is directly proportional to the commercial viability of the end product. One need only experience Mac OS X, as an example, to concur.
Been down the GPL/LGPL rant road far too many times in recent months to still retain any semblance of motivation to do it again. Endlessly repeating the same arguments is boring, especially when no original points are made, just the old points made louder.
I will say this though. Essentially GNU has BSD licensed code over a barrel here. If GNU apps can use BSD licensed code and release under GPL/LGPL and BSD licensed apps can’t touch GPL code then some nightmarish scenarios start to raise their head thanks to both parties being able to check over each other’s sources to find any similarities. As the number of lines of code released under GPL/LGPL increase, the chances of new BSD licensed software finding itself under attack for some imagined license violation increases. Would people actually go that far do it? Who knows.
The other thing would be GNU’s control over Linux and, to a lesser extent the BSD variants. A large proportion of the ancillary system code is GNU. Linus and the kernel team may control the kernel api’s and drivers, but GNU are the ones currently controlling most of the core system apps. Once again, I don’t think they’d use that position to their advantage, but who knows? Certainly once Hurd approaches completion (Shortly after pigs buzz Area 51, the devil starts selling snowcones and RMS removes the ivory tower from his backside) it would be tempting for them to concentrate on Hurd compatibility above anything else.
I actually think we need more licenses, not less. Survival of the fittest kind of thing. If the GPL/LGPL get taken into court and ripped apart then what does the OSS community end up with? Diversity breeds strength.
>Actually it is possible to compile BSD with other compilers, well with the exception of some poorly coded third-party userland apps, as far as I know, the BSD kernels are all pretty much ANSI C, and those few parts that aren’t, could be ported to another compiler within a month or two, I mean hell, you could port BSD to MSVC in theory and cross-compile it if you so desired.
Are you from some *BSD core team? I doubt it. Losing the GNU toolchain would be catastrophe for *BSD believe me. If they would be able to they would have replaced the GPL licensed parts of every BSD system already with something less restrictive. They can’t.
Especially a “pure BSD” system is almost impossible because there is no BSD-licensed C compiler outthere AFAIK. So they would need to write one from scratch. And now imagine not to just write a C/C++ (we want KDE too, right?) compiler but also to port it to dozens of platforms (needed for NetBSD). It is theoretically possible but in reality the BSD projects don’t have the manpower for that and even if a few dedicated ones try it it would take several years at least.
Gimme a break!
It was said a lot in the past comments, but I couldn’t resists to do it myself.
“The majority of programmers already know that OSS is responsible for the bulk of today’s most superior software.”
Yeah. Right. Whatever you say, zealot king.
“This page is here to explain how BSD and similar licenses hurt the OSS community more than they can ever help it, and why developers should use GNU licenses or similar instead.”
Yeah. Right. You just repeated *exactly* why, as a programmer, I flee GPL like plague : you offer freedom, as long as it fit with *your* definition of what freedom should be. I call it a prison behind a freedom mask.
No thanks for me, I’m way too happy to live my own freedom thanks to BSD & MIT licenses.
I am not on a *BSD core team, but I have looked at the source code, guess what? Much of their code PREDATES gcc, and is thus not compiler dependent. Guess what else, look at this http://www.tendra.org/
It’s a BSD licensed C-Compiler, now granted it’s not ready to compile a BSD, but with some work it could be. BSD’s already got a make. Anything else standing in the way of a GPL-free BSD?
Oh and there’s always Intel’s ICC, not open source, but it does run under FreeBSD and should compile most of the userland if nothing else.
-bytes256
BSD allows the hard work of OSS developers to just be packed a way into a commercial application without even giving anything back to the project.
This isn’t really about being “Free” especially since no one can define free. I prefer a GNU license because it does the most important thing:
Gives knowledge to the people.
Knowlegde belongs to the people and keeping the code open keeps companies from keeping knowledge
>It’s a BSD licensed C-Compiler, now granted it’s not ready to compile a BSD, but with some work it could be.
“some work” yeah. Any real *BSD hackers here? How much work do you think it would actually take?
You can not steal that which is freely given.
Can someone tell me, what exactly is wrong with proprietary software???
It’s not like GNU/GPL people seem to be very creative. They constantly clone existing proprietary solutions, and allways one step behind…
I can be one year behind and use software under BSD for free or pay if I want something proprietary based on the BSD codebase.
What’s the problem? I just don’t get it…
>>> Max: “If Stallman would disallow the *BSD projects to use the FSF compiler today they (the BSDians) would be royally screwed.”
(1) RMS can’t disallow the use of GCC in its current version.
(2) Suppose he would (if he could at all*) in all future versions…
(3) Any interested party could fork the GCC Suite anytime and continue development with and on it.
(4) (Not only) because of point 3 point 2 will never happen.
End of story
——————–
* RMS does not hold the exclusive copyright of GCC.
Gnu zealots like RMS and his faithful thralls are basically socialists.
Socialists are fundamentally opposed to the concept of private property. The word proprietary means “made and sold by one with the sole right to do so”.
Look up “socialism + private property” on google, you’ll find tons of stuff on socialist attacks on private property.
Analogy
By Owen Anderson (IP: —.charterga.net) – Posted on 2003-05-12 19:41:21
An analogy that I like is that BSD licensing is like charity. You’re giving away your code to anyone, and they’re free to do with it as they please. Whereas GNU is like socialism, forcing everyone to share everything with everyone else. Somehow, the former seems more appealing to me.
as a freebsd user, EVEN I can tell you right off the bat that GNU is not like socialism. If you live in a country with socialism, YOU CANNOT CHOOSE something else without strong repercussions…like immediate execution, or trying to instigate a civil war.
if you don’t like GNU…simply choose NOT to use it.
you won’t be executed, you won’t be fined…hell GNU is the minority here.
you are an idiot.
and your analogies are false and weak.
Alex wrote: “BSD allows the hard work of OSS developers to just be packed a way into a commercial application without even giving anything back to the project.”
Well, that’s every programmers choice, isn’t it ? I personnaly, as a programmer, prefere way more using BSD and MIT for my projects. I don’t care if a company use it and make profit out of it, as long as I’m credited for what they used.
sdfa wrote: “This isn’t really about being “Free” especially since no one can define free. I prefer a GNU license because it does the most important thing: Gives knowledge to the people. Knowlegde belongs to the people and keeping the code open keeps companies from keeping knowledge”
I don’t really see your point, we are comparing BSD-like and GNU licenses, which are *both* free *and* open. What you say apply for a discussion between open and closed source advocates. But not between BSD-like and GNU licenses advocates.
XBe wrote: “You can not steal that which is freely given.”
I can’t agree more, you summed everything in one line. 🙂
XBe wrote: “Can someone tell me, what exactly is wrong with proprietary software???”
Nothing. I’m a big fan of BSD & MIT licenses for open-source, however I’m a big defender of closed-source too. CS are essential because they protect companies massive investment. And everybody win by having companies putting lot of money in software investment, even if the result cost something and that the code is closed.
> If you live in a country with socialism, YOU CANNOT CHOOSE
Thank you for making my point, the GPL restricts the programers right to choose between releasing his code as either open or closed source code. Therefore the GPL is very much like socialism.
To further my points on GNU = Socialism read RMS’s essay titled “Why Software should not have owners” available on the fsf website in the philosophy section.
> if you don’t like GNU…smply choose NOT to use it
I don’t use it, I use FreeBSD !
The BSDL allows me the power of choice
The GPL does not.
: )
‘Discussion’ between different ideological camps is pointless. BSD software is not “more free”, just like GPL sofware isn’t. Because ‘free’ is purely a matter of interpretation.
From a GNUian point of view ‘free from suckers who want to close my sources’ is real freedom. From a BSDian its not.
There is no point in fighting flame wars over that.
At least in the OSS world they don’t throw bombs at each other (ok, maybe mail bombs *g).
By Max
I do agree with this and it is the most un trollish comment made. its the fact.
Although I do appreciate the freedom that the BSD license provides, I don´t like at all the collateral effects of it. If MegaCorp wants to take some BSD code, improve it and then sell it, that´s fine. What pisses me off is the fact that the developers of the original code don´t receive a dime from it and MegaCorp doesn´t even need to disclose those improvements their developers did.
Nobody gains from that except MegaCorp itself: nor the developers and not the community either. MegaCorp didn´t needed to pay nothing to get quality and extensively tested code.
GPL might have that viral effect, but at least, it levels the play field as someone here already has pointed out. MegaCorp is allowed to make profit from GPL software, improving it for it own needs if wants to, but it have to give back something to the community where it got that fine piece of code for free.
By DeadFish Man
RIGHT ON!!!
All microsoft fans love bsd (loved how you comment on this matter eugenia).. how many years has ms been borrowing bsd code and giving nothing back to the community other than lock ins and entrapments ?
i love the gpl licence. Take mac os its based on bsd everyone knows that because mac straight out said yeah hey we have built on top of the bsd kernel..
Then further recently they released the safari browser based on khtml. which is gpl. they developed on it improved it and gave back the source to the community.
Something microsoft would NEVER do.
it embraces extends and engulfs it and if it cant do that then it lashes out about how bad it is.
how many here know for example the whole of windows ip stack comes from bsd ? or that microsofts dns server is nothing more than bind with a gui stuck on it.
dont get me wrong i love the fact that the bsd code is free as is. Its not to say that linux programs dont use bsd code and develop on top of course they do but the code is still available all the improvements they do they pump back out..
private property is one thing but when that private property is built on top of public property and tries to hide the fact that it has been thats another matter.
in school i know this much, you were dealt with a heavy hand if u plagirised some one elses work without giving due credit.. and so many give microsoft credit for doing just that. I wouldnt dislike microsoft so much if they gave credit where it was due. and gpl ensures that the credit is given.
If you’re going to trash my analaogies, please try to understand them first. I said socialism, not communism. There’s a difference. I strongly suggest you find out what it is.
Secondly, you proved my own point in your arguments. Charity is a choice. You choose to give it away freely. Socialism is not a choice. You are forced by the government to give up your money for the collective good. See the comparison?
And since I’m posting anyways, I thought I’d give you some more of my thoughts on the matter. As a developer, I despise the GPL. And not even a commercial developer. I write plenty of Open Source code. I’ve distributed it under all manner of licenses. And I think that the GPL is no more free than a large number of proprietary licenses.
When I think of the programming community, I don’t divide it into proprietary and Open Source coders. If I want to give my code away, I want to help everybody. If I really want to make the community better, I give my code to everyone. GNU feeds off of the idea of a conflict between proprietary and open code. This is exactly the same kind of thinking that gave rise to Marxism and other variants of socialism.
And a final note: as the BSD system predates GCC by a good bit, I fail to see the *BSDs as truly tied to GNU. Presumably they were compiled with something else before GCC came along, and equally they could go back to whatever it was.
IP is IP, no matter which way you want to swing it.
The BSD license removes the IP issue, by effectively allowing you to use the code as you see fit.
The GPL/LGPL exacerbate the IP issue because their entire means of attacking IP, in an attempt to ‘free’ (Imagine this is your very own favourite definition of free) software for the masses, is based on respecting IP. The whole core of the GPL revolves around the right of IP owners to dictate terms under which their software may be used/developed/distributed. The GPL/LGPL is _JUST_ as proprietary as closed source software, it just happens to make it’s source available.
And that pretty much sums up my entire beef with GPL/LGPL. It had excellent ideals, but those ideals have been almost entirely subverted by the means used to pursue them. All that remains is the fact that you can read the source of GPL/LGPL programs, everything else has been lost by the wayside. At least the BSD license fulfilled the aims it set out to achieve.
Is GPL/LGPL making open source software available? Yes.
Is it making software ‘free’? You don’t remove the cage by changing the locks.
I do not understand that too many comments were posted on this topic even though I knew that it would just after reading the subject :p
The author seems to love L/GPL and he is talking about his lovinh L/GPL vs other OSS license which defines “freedom” in a different way.
It is fine that he loves and prefers to use L/GPL, but his writing is IMHO completely written in a self flavoured point of view rather than in an objective point of view.
Therefore I think I am better to just ignore this writing.
Lets go, get different news and have a fun.
[i]If you live in a country with socialism, YOU CANNOT CHOOSE something else without strong repercussions…like immediate execution, or trying to instigate a civil war. [i]
In my opinion this is a common misunderstanding. Nowhere does the thoery of socialism state “You have no choices.” The typical examples of communsim, a close relative of socialism, are communist Russia and China. These governments did oppress their people. But that oppression was above and beyond the theory of socialism.
The main idea of socialism is that no one owns anything and resources are shared. The GPL fits this perfectly. That does not make it inheirently wrong or anything. Many people, as evidenced by the amount of GPL software, think this is a great thing.
Personally though, when I give something away for free, I don’t like impossing any restrictions on it. The GPL is most definatly a restriction, there is no question about this. So I prefer BSD.
If GPL software developers could make a finished product that would be fine, but as they are unwilling to a complete solution that meets the needs of the average person we need the Apple’s out there to finish the product and do things that unpaid programmers are unwilling to do – offer value.
>,Is it me or the referenced article is quite superficial ?
What’s even more funny is that it caused the usual troll…
“My freedom is freer than yours” …. funny, may be sad.
I may be mistaken but the way I see it the guy is saying GPL is better because it forces users to become good citizen of GPLland.
What I have seen as developper, is that either company would anyway donate their code, don’t care and would steal anything, or avoid to work with GPL.
By the way releasing under GPL for a company can be the insurance that a competitor would not be allowed to shamelessly improve on their code without giving back, this makes perfect sense. For a developper ? who is a competitor if I’m a free software contributor ?
The fact that company uses free software code HAS NEVER stopped free software project (see BSD IP stack).
As a developper if someone uses my code that’s fine: that’s brain power that won’t be wasted reinventing something that allready exists. Informaly I have always exchanged snippets of code with developper friends (coworkers or not) without any license, I used their code, they used mine.
I personnaly don’t approve many companies behaviour, and I firmly believe that Free Software is a very important movement in quick changes times.
But, childish behaviour inside the community is just a waste of ressource and time (except that zelots feeling ok to fight on those points probably should keep on fighting one another instead of risking making “normal people” run away).
Ah, personnaly I feel that improving the state of software written (commercial or not) is inherently good and that people should use my code freely and only have to give me credit for my ego satisfaction (if they want to give back they benefit of the improvements, if not I’ll do without them and they’ll have to integrate their fork with mine if they want, not my problem). I perfectly understand that some people would feel stolen by a company apropriating their code, so GPL is for them.
I won’t try to force them to adopt other license, and they would waste their time trying to convince me…
Guys(and girls) make the code not war !
— sorry, I couln’t help trolling tonight
> I said socialism, not communism. There’s a difference.
No there isn’t.
“We Communists never conceal our political views. Definitely and beyond all doubt, our future or maximum program is to carry China forward to socialism and communism. ” Mao Tse Tung
Socialism is a rung in the ladder up towards communism.
There can be no communism without socialism.
> Charity is a choice
Yes it is.
However, I prefer it if it were a willful choice as opposed to a pre-decided one. Charity idealy should be freely given, not pre-decided by some license set in stone by one man. I want to make the choice. That’s how I define “free”.
These posts are quite hillarious. They are so heavily ladened with peoples *ideologies* it isn’t funny.
Are you any less a zealot because you feel strongly in the right to private property? (One manifestation of socialism led to Stallin and Lein. One manifestation of privatism led to Mussolini and Hitler)
Are you any less of a zeolot because you believe in the unequivocal right to personal freedom? (Which, by the way, by definition means that you have the right to trample the next guy to get what you want). It all depends on your audience.
Let’s try to put some sense into the all of this poltical economic shit flinging. The Evil Socialists versus the Freedom Loving Capitalists. It *never* happened. It is people viewing a small part of history and political economic theory with blinders on. I find it useful to think of things in these terms:
In terms of politics (authoritianism <–> libertarianism)
In terms economics (privatism <—> socialism)
Note the socialism used here does not imply Stallinism and libertarianism does not imply Libertarian Party, USA.
From here, we can develop four tendencies:
1) authoritarian socialism (i.e. Stallin, Lenin)
2) libertarian socialism (i.e. perhaps parts of Spain around WWII, but has no watershed historical examples)
3) authoritarian privatism (Hitler, Mussolini)
4) libertarian privatism (no watershed historical examples)
Take these four points and draw and X or a cross. Everything else a mixture of tendencies. Whether your are a republocratic, social democratic, green or Libertarian Party member, you fit somewhere inside.
Personally, I lean towards option #2 because a) I hate authoritarianism and want want to have a say in how my life unfold b) because I value right of all individuals to have their needs met over the individuals right to satisify all material desires at the expense of others.
BSD does *NOT* hurt OSS. I can prove it. Doesn’t anyone want to discuss that, or do they want to keep talking about politics and government analogies ?
The purpose of the GNU project is to consolidate as much software as possible under one name. Sorta like, say, a monopoly.
Oh, is that what a monopoly does? And here I thought they did many unethical things like price-fixing and anti-competitive business practices.
Comparing a monopoly to the GNU project is like comparing Bill Gates to Jesus.
Hey, now that I’m thinking about it, Stallman kinda looks like Jesus, doesn’t he? Hrmmm.
First, off I wasn’t responding to your post. I was responding to the first guy who trashed my analogy.
Secondly, you proved yourself that socialism is not communism. Communism is a very advanced stage of socialism, but that does not mean that socialism cannot exist without communism. However, that’s not the issue at hand.
Thirdly, I don’t think we disagree with the charity issue. I was comparing charity to BSD and socialism to GNU. I, like you, prefer charity to communism.
So all in all, your last post was unnecessary since I agree with you.
You are confusing real political economic tendencies with rhettoric. Just because Mao Tse Tung states that he is a socialist or communist doesn’t define the terms.
Believe it or not there are those out there who define themselves as libertarian communists or anarcho-communists which has nothing to due with Mao Tse Tung or Stallin. Such philosophical roots, btw, predate the above mentioned characters.
i don’t agree at all that bsd license hurts oss. i think it’s a good license. i also think the gnu is a useable license as well. it just depends on what you are doing.
what galls me is this immediate launch into analogies to government structures. it’s about as stupid as the car analogies. next thing we will be comparing french fries to hitler.
if i’m talking to the other managers, if i start a diatribe on how this license is socialism, this other one is a monarchy, and another is marxist…..i’m gonna get laughed out of the meeting.
i think both licenses are valuable…but i’d appreciate your insights, sans the silly analogies.
The GPL, in fact, allows you to use GPL code in a non-GPL program. The only requirement is to write the author (or the FSF) for permission. Has anyone here actually read the GPL2?
Someone here spread FUD about Stallman and the FSF retaining rights to programs under their licenses. Nowhere in the GPL do I read the line “You hereby agree to sign all control over your program to Me, Richard Stallman, and my GNU legions. BWAHAHAHAHA!”
Stallman has said that were copyright and software patents not an issue, there would be no need for the GPL.
That said, I think this article is completely bogus. The author obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and makes wild and ridiculous leaps of logic.
Comparing his licenses to socialism is stupid. Stallman’s goal was to promote the sharing of ideas and code among developers and users, to restore things to the way they were before nondisclosure agreements. If anything, this is like an implementation of the Castalian way of life (The Glass Bead Game). How
(you must provide source code)
==
(Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy)
is completely beyond me.
“Socialism” as you people seem to mean it is a swear word mostly used by Americans who don’t understand it and think it means “pinko bastards”.
my point, as some other people might have pointed out (deep inside the big ball of philosophy/politics) is that BSD-licensed software has been used in either actual verbatim code, or derivatives, in BOTH proprietary and OSS code.
some proof of this is the 23 or so instances of it in the Linux source code that I can see right now on my laptop. I’m sure there are others, in other OSS “approved” licensed software, like apache, bind, sendmail, etc.
so you can’t cast BSD as evil or bad (as this very unblanced article points out) when the OSS community has also benefitted from its code and license.
In fact, without having actual numbers, I will go so far as to say that more F/OSS projects have benefitted from BSD code and licensing than in proprietary code.
For example, there is not ONE project listed on FSF’s LGPL listing that hasn’t in some way been effected by BSD code, which is only possible through the BSD license.
>>IP is IP, no matter which way you want to swing it.
>>The BSD license removes the IP issue, by effectively >>allowing you to use the code as you see fit.
I have to disagree. I hold that “property” is a social construct. Say that I wanted to develop some code and release it in a condition that best resembled a state of non-property, then the BSD license doesn’t do anything for me. This code can become someone else’s property. The GPL in this instance more closely resembles and situation of non-property using, ta da, existing property laws. Since society and the laws encompassing society doesn’t allow for non-property, there is no other way around this little dillemna other than retaining some property rights (copy left).
yes indeed no ones debating that fact linux uses bsd code and doesnt claim that it doesnt thats not an issue.
yes if bsd licence was a propreitry licence then no one but bsd would have benifitted from some of the marvellous code. but that doesnt take away from the fact that a company like microsoft get their hands on the code embrace and extend it and make it proprietry so that they only benifit.,
while if the bsd licence was more along the line of gpl it couldnt be swallowed up by a commercial company.. they would be free to use it aslong as they 1. gave the source
and
2. provided the improvements back.
thats what this is about..
indeed theres no point in reinventing the wheel and if someone has written high quality code and made it freely available then it should be picked up and extended but are you not then killing off that persons hard work by not giving back your improvements ?
u get what i mean ?
This debate is as dangerous as debating the merits of Vi vs Emacs, or Windows vs Mac. It will rage on and on without end.
Ultimately it all boils down to personal preference.
I prefer the BSDL over GPL, however I welcome the efforts of GPL advcates to try and change my mind.
I hope people will try FreeBSD, If your not using it now give it a shot.
I’ve seen alot of comments referring to the ‘horror’ of BSD code being “stolen” or “plagiarised” in closed source software.
It CAN’T be stealing or plagiarism if the author says ‘do what you will with this code, I don’t care’.
That’s the whole point of BSD. It’s public domain.
Somebody used the word ‘gift’ for BSD and they’re right. A gift is given with no strings, no reciprocation.
bsd license itself is neither good or evil, but neutral…perhaps described agendaless.
gnu license could be described as “goshdamn right we have an agenda”….an agenda to prevent microsoft and companies like them from swallowing them whole.
gnu backers percieve that freedom of information is being threatened by microsoft and companies like microsoft.
bsd backers seem to think this is rediculous, and how can you battle to save freedom by taking choice away.
very interesting.
yes, of course I get what you mean…
when you say “while if the bsd licence was more along the line of gpl”…that’s not the intent of this article’s author. wishing that the BSD license will change into the GPL is all well and good, but not realistic.
my main point is that whatever its evils, intellectual property theft, etc….the BSD license is not inherently evil just because it allows companies like Microsoft to make better products. As you have admitted, it allows OSS products like Linux to improve upon it as well.
the author’s final point was that because of the ability to take BSD code, companies like Microsoft and Apple will be able to beat OpenSource software.
I say that is B.S., and that OSS software can benefit in just the same amount as closed source software can. Thus, the BSD license doesn’t “hurt” OSS…it’s not providing proprietary software any advantage that it’s not also giving to OSS.
that is the point I’m trying to make. But people muddying analogies and philosophy are making that point unclear and looked over.
bsd is a gift.
gnu is a movement.
if a person thinks that a few mamoth companies will end up owning/controlling all technology and information provided by that technology…..
i can see how a gift is irrelevant….who cares about a gift if we are about to get our asses mowed down by an enemy with endless resources.
on the other hand, if a person does not believe that a handful of companies threaten the future of technology…in fact think that people who making those claims are loons….
i can see how wanting to make a gift of one’s code under gnu would leave a political aftertaste.
hmmmm.
(if i WERE a coder *i’m not*, i’m not sure which way i’d swing…i kind of empathize with both)
>bsd is a gift
>gnu is a movement
>…
I totaly agree with your description, lets keep close to reality and avoid political theory parallels(1).
I would just add that various people would chose one or the other for a bunch reasons(rationnal or not, the two you made explicit probably being the most common ones)
But whatever they select will not really matter because in the end, GPL people benefit from BSD code and BSD people benefit from the community.
—
“use Perl Artistic Licence, the license that have the nicest name(2) !!”
(1) nobody compared an BSD licence to Anarchy and GPL to Socialism, strange, I would have thought this one easy.
(2) and Larry Wall has shirts that even RMS would not dare wearing, which is sort of cool !
>bsd is a gift
>gnu is a movement
That’s about the best summary anyone has ever written. If you genuinely want to benefit the computing world, use BSD. If you want to make a statement, use GPL.
Actually, the Perl Artistic License is probably my second favorite OSS license. Nice blend of the two.
I couldn’t agree more.
You said everything I tried to say earlier but without getting bogged down in the politics. Well done.
> And a final note: as the BSD system predates GCC by a
> good bit, I fail to see the *BSDs as truly tied to GNU.
> Presumably they were compiled with something else before
> GCC came along, and equally they could go back to
> whatever it was.
As I understand it, the original BSD compiler was part of the AT&T proprietary parts of the system. Therefore, when BSDlite was split off from the AT&T code the compiler was left out. GCC was the most functional replacement at the time, although there were two or three other viable OSS compilers (tenDra etc).
Ironically, GCC along with a lot of other GNU software illustrates that the FSF are THE “embrace, extend and extinguish” villains of the OSS world. The GNU codebase is full of code that was formerly part of the BSD system that was changed (often to be slightly incompatible – anyone who has tried to port software from GNU make/libc to *BSD knows this). Of course none of those changes can be incorporated back into *BSD without slapping the GPL onto the rest of the system.
The non-GPL compilers had as much chance as any to succeed but failed to compete with GCC exactly because of these tactics. GNU/Linux has dominated because it came along at the right time, when BSD was in a hole because of legal issues etc, but also because it has been able to take the IP stack and countless other bits of code from BSD without giving anything back. If it had been released under the BSD license (and I think Torvalds probably would have done this under different circumstances, he doesn’t seem to care much about licensing issues) OSS would still be as successful.
I think the GPL is good under some circumstances, particularly for OSS forks of proprietary systems (qt) but I have little respect for the FSF and its zealots. Despite crowing about the “free software community” they have done everything possible to denigrate the real originators of Free Software, taken code and gone out of their way not to credit the original authors (ever try contributing to a GNU project without assigning your copyright to the FSF?), and have contributed little of value in and of itself. GCC and Emacs are all I can think of – everything else of value in OSS (X11, BIND, userland tools, Apache, sendmail and so on) originated in BSD/MIT or similar licensed code. Screw them and screw their selfish “free” license.
there’s no need for a history lesson here.
not all people who use GNU software are “zealots”…there’s an awful lot of name calling here, it’s almost as bad as slashdot. everyone seems to feel the need to give the whole history of GNU or BSD when the point is not whether either license is better.
the point is whether or not this article is true or valid. (that BSD harms OSS). which, it does not.
I was reacting to the original article, which seems to be the latest in a long trend of “rewriting history” by a certain brand of GNU advocate. I am by no means suggesting that all GNU advocates are evil (or even all FSF members). History is important because theoretical arguments about licensing mean very little, what does matter is how those licenses have been used or misused either for the greater good or for the furthering of narrow agendas. However my post was written in anger and may not be helpful to the debate. I certainly don’t want this forum to end up like Slashdot.
I think the article was terribly written, with more opinions then facts. Bolding words/sentences and repeating them doesn’t make the argument any stronger. I’m sure the programmers knew what they were doing when they released their code under the BSD license so even if a commercial company decided to take their code to make proprietary software its not stealing. The author constantly states that opensource software cannot compete with proprietary software, but I don’t see why. As a free software OpenOffice and Mozilla seems to be doing OK despite “competing” with its proprietary cousin StarOffice and whateverbrowserusinggecko. The BSD license has had much of its code adopted by both proprietary and OpenSource , yet it’s doing more damage to OpenSource then proprietary software? It’s buyous article depicting the BSD coders as gimps working for peanuts to appease their commercial masters. The article must have been written by a Bill himself to cause dissension among the ranks
.
If you want to promote a standard, like TCP/IP, then it is best to release under BSD, then it is more likely that everyone will adopt the standard and variants will not be created.
Other times, you may want to select GPL or LGPL. It depends on the project and the goals of the project.
This debate (BSD/LGP licenses) has aroused my interest in BSDs. Both licences have their merits, but I am beginning to favor BSD. Off to BSD isos & documentations!
no kidding, sherlock. maybe you could read what the article (and discussion) is about first before posting.
the question is NOT “what license is best ?”
Ok, well this furthered my not wanting to touch anythng GPL/GNU. Anyone else thinking it’s time to start with FreeBSD and make a 100% MIT/BSD liscensed OS. Sorta the anti gnu-os. As others have pointed out the compiler is an issue, but can be worked around in time. I don’t know the license of Xfree86, but if it’s GPL i guess it’s a good reason for something new. Anyways, a completely non gnu os would be interesting to see. I bet it would find its self growning faster then the gnu os’s linux, hurd… . Also would probably find much corportate support. Not to say such a goal would be easy. But i think many people would want to be part of it.
*sigh*… another lame Linux user who just couldn’t get the hang of *BSD. Ya know, not everyone is into ‘commie code’. And furthermore, just because something is widely used doesn’t mean it’s better. Think Windows, Linux and Dodge Neons here. With it’s superior speed, reliability, tight packaging, ports collection and higher security, I would say *BSD is the best alternative out there. But then you get morons like this who try it a few times, fail miserably and decide they’ve got nothing better to do than hassle the very dedicated team of committers *BSD has working for it. Hell of a lot better than the Cox/Torvalds duo. A Nazi and a slacker. Ok. Right. And just think, all it took was a lawsuit in ’95 to steer all the CIS kids away from *BSD and into the grasp of Linux, the next big sucky OS. Right behind Winders.
are you all 12 year olds ? why must it always be about BSD *OR* GNU ? everyone always dumbs it down to try to make it some simple decision, and they think their reasons are always the best.
how about everyone try taking more than 2 seconds to THINK about all sides of an issue ? or even better, READ THE ARTICLE THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT, and comment on THAT, not whether BSD is better than GNU.
Eric Raymond did…
at least get your facts right.
I use open GPL-ed program e.g. Linux -> Thanks to Linux developers, I will contribute if I can someday 🙂
I use closed BSD program e.g. Windows -> I am locked in.
I am forced to pay upgrades. I consider MS stealing my money because they just wraped free OS and hide it with a nice GUI then charging me (what about if I am happened to be one of those BSD developer) 🙁
I use open BSD program e.g. FreeBSD -> Thanks, I won’t pay anything. Maybe I will sell it as say MacOSeXY someday 😉
Given I as a developer decide that my source licence is either:
1. GPL -> the GPL community (including users) will be benefited. Others (BSD, closed) won’t.
2. BSD -> the GPL community will not be benefited. Others (BSD, closed) will.
I will chose GPL.
What is your opinion as a user?