Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35384 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1836 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!world!jrs From: jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) Subject: Linux and 386BSD Message-ID: <JRS.93Apr21200843@lepton.world.std.com> Sender: jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) Organization: The Internet Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 00:08:43 GMT Lines: 84 There has been a lively cross-discussion within the Linux and 386BSD groups largely concerning distribution licenses. The focus has been the difference between the Linux GPL-style license and the 386BSD BSD-style license. I feel that this discussion has been for the most part counter-productive to both groups and I want to see if we can learn something from it and move on. People who feel that the "other" license style is absurd, stupid, brain-damaged, etc. are denying the fact that many intelligent free software developers have thought long and hard about the issues and have often come to different conclusions about what license is best. If it were so clear cut that one could change someone's mind by ridiculing their position or restating the obvious then everyone would be using the same license. Since they are not, it is clear that developers have differing goals and that many of the issues are still vague or depend on premises which have not yet been tested by time. The BSD-style license has many advantages. It preserves copyright. It ensures attribution. It provides great flexibility to the developers of derived works. Many intelligent people have carefully chosen to distribute their works under this license. They knew what they were doing, they knew about the potential for abuse, and they would do it again. The GPL-style license also has advantages. It too preserves copyright and ensures attribution. It greatly increases the chance that improvements will also be free and incorporated back into the distribution. Many practical non-zealots have chosen to distribute their works under this license. Usually they chose it not because they are looking forward to a post-scarcity society but because they believe it makes sense for their software today. What I believe are misconceptions abound in the discussion. Misconception: The 386BSD developers do not understand the potential for abuse with the BSD-style license. Of course they understand. Their goal is not to ensure that all derivatives of their software are free but to make research contributions to the Operating Systems field. Misconception: The Linux developers steal free code from 386BSD, make one or two changes and then attach the GPL to it. In rare cases where the author of the changes has explicitly stated this and his/her changes are clearly marked, even then the GPL only applies to the changes. However, in the vast majority of cases, non-Linux software and the Linux changes are distributed using the unmodified license of the original. This is just common courtesy. Misconception: The 386BSD developers hate the GPL and scorn software that uses it. Hardly. Without GPL software there would have no 386BSD at all. However, they would prefer that the kernel and C libraries contain only BSD-style licensed code. This is a natural consequence of the fact the all of the 386BSD kernel and C libraries currently have this license. Misconception: Commercial programs and binary-only free programs automatically violate the Linux library license. Since Linux uses shared libraries, commercial developers are free to sell fully-linked binaries which liberally use the C library as long as the binaries don't use the static libraries. The only piece of Linux library code that is included in such a binary is crt0.o and a static version of load_shared_libraries(). These are not subject to the restrictions of the LGPL. The main reason there is friction between the 386BSD and Linux communities is because they share the same audience: PC owners looking for an inexpensive Unix-clone. It is rather like the perpetual war between `vi' and `Emacs' users. However, this is no reason for name-calling and flippant remarks. The 386BSD group is a talented and colorful collection of people working on a fine software product. I would like to think the Linux group could be similarly described. There is less cross-fertilization than might be imagined because both groups enjoy doing things from scratch as a learning experience. Independent reinvention is valuable because the opportunity for real change occurs very early in the discovery process. It may sound inefficient but it sure is a lot of fun.