slashdot.org/articles/99/09/02/189210.shtml
A major complaint of GPL supporters has been removed from the BSDL, and what do slashdot readers do? To do so would be showing an utter lack respect for the creators of the software. For example, a person has the right to hunt for his or her own food. However, that same person cannot hunt and kill another human being, even for food. Because killing another human being impinges on the freedom of that other person. The point: the GPL basically states that you have certain rights. The same rights, more or less, as those granted with the BSD license. The GPL goes further, however, by stating that you must give everyone else the same rights you have, and consequently that they must give everyone else those same rights. When I get a piece of BSD software, I have certain rights. However, because of BSD's license, I can theoretically deny those same rights to other people. IF GNU/Linux, THEN Linux/HURD (Score:1) by 92 kybernator (76039) on Thursday September 02, @12:10PM ( 93 #1708584) Thing with RMS is, besides being a great hacker and heroe of free software, he also has become a hippocrite due to his bruised ego for not having had the final success with his _complete_ GNU OS. But, you could look at it this way: You might think you are denying someone else these all-important rights, but in reality, it would only apply to your modifications. Before anyone goes ballistic, I understand that the license doesn't say this in any way. However, as long as the original source is still around, anyone can grab the original and have the same rights you had/have. Just because you can fork off a new BSD derivative and deny people access to the source code doesn't mean people have to use it. If people are paying for BSDI when a free version is available, that's their choice. Note: I'm not trying to knock the GPL here or start (join) a flame war. I just think that some of these arguments against BSD are ignoring common sense. Maybe I've always had a different definition for freedom, maybe that's why ESR had to make a witty statement to help define what freedom means in the GPL. I do know people who are not like what I despise (above) who favor Linux, I am on two LUGs, I even tried to get to LinuxWorld, and I have multiple distributions of Linux. But I also prefer *BSD's culture, no matter what ESR and RMS like to demean it as. You zealots are going to be the ones who make 1984 a reality. Similar arrangements exist everywhere government money is involved. BSD is a proven well head for Sun, HP, Microsoft, SCO, and every other software vendor. BSD was the conduit for goverment funded software research. I, and other GPL contributers are capitalists in every sense of the word. They've figured out there is zero potential return on their investment under BSD. They know they can't compete on the basis of selling their software product for cash. So, the GPL allows them to sell their software product for profit in the form of services. They get bug fixes, enhancements, and noteriaty in return for their investment. Under a capitalistic system, people who perform any service without maximizing their potential return are failures, by definition. Users of the GPL reviewed their options, and took an action they believe maximized their return. So, what economic system do you work under that associates bright thinking with giving your profitable work away for a guarenteed zero return? You lambast the people who choose to take advantage of the very freedom you praise about the BSD license, all in the same breath! By your logic, we should congratulate a murderer for exercising his or her freedom (ability) to purchase a weapon and end someone else's life. Or we should applaud someone who signs a note to waive their right to vote. Of course we don't want someone to sell away their freedom, however that IS their choice. One hopes that people will take advantage of their freedoms and act in that same Spirit of Freedom, however that is not always the case. The Spirit of Freedom intrinsically allows people to relinquich their freedoms. The community as a whole probably wishes everyone would work in the Spirit of Freedom. The GPL forces everyone to work like this, which is a inherent contradiction. The BSDL realizes that in the true Spirit of Freedom, you can't force someone to act in the Spirit of Freedom. I'm not sure if I understand you, but you seem to be saying that people who BSDL their code really don't want other people to take advantage of it with a less free license. But this contradicts several of the assertions made by BSDL advocates in this forum that specifically say they don't mind if this happens. For the record I have absolutely nothing against the BSD license. What irritates me is people who advocate the BSDL as being "more free" on the one hand, and then turn around and go ape-shit when someone wants to include BSD code in a GPL program. I've actually seen one person suggest that a clause be added to the BSD license that specificly prohibits use in GPL code! RMS requested that people acknowledge their operating systems as being essentially the GNU OS with a Linux kernel, hence "GNU/Linux" systems. The BSD license, on the other hand, legally mandated that Berkeley be credited in all advertising materials. Even your 3-line classified ad had to waste one of the lines crediting Berkeley. Well, maybe not perfect, but it's pretty libertarian of 'em. He has every right, if some smart allic took his BSD'd code and GPL'd it, to take them to court. GNU attacks BSDL because it can not be subliscensed (not reliscensed) by the GPL due to the advertisement clause. You are stealling the code and rights of the author, not subliscensing it. Re:Out of context (Score:1) by 123 NovaX (37364) on Thursday September 02, @01:05PM ( 124 #1708604) (Last Journal: 125 Friday April 18, @03:46AM) They kind of makes me think of the borg, mad when they can't assimulate, and take all credit for the plusses of who/what they did assimulate. Other people who have added code to BSD have inserted demands for credit to them, and for such code, the advertising clause is still in effect. For code that only demands credit to Berkeley, the conflict is gone and it can now be freely linked to GPL code. Any Linux distribution I've seen is the GNU system with some BSD tools and a Linux kernel. The BSD tools are a minimal part of the system, though -- if you put the GNU tools on a FreeBSD system, you don't get GNU/FreeBSD -- it works the other way around, too. This also means that if someone took FreeBSD and replaced only the kernel with Linux, you could legitimately call it BSD/Linux. I was addressing the common complaint that people dont want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. But when people start using the words deny and rights to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, thats when the piles other than socks start getting deep. More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If the someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license. To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions? If the additions are useful and they wont give them to us, someone will duplicate it in a free form. However, if the proprietary group couldnt have made the additions proprietary in the first place, dont think they would naturally have written them and given them away. The things that work eventually make it into free source. If were trying to promot...
|
http://csua.com/feed/