Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:36811 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2119 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!bogus.sura.net!ra!tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric From: eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil Organization: Naval Research Laboratory References: <C63spB.BD@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1993 22:54:24 GMT Lines: 52 To begin with, I would like to reiterate the fact that I have no problem with people using the BSD style of copyright. I am not interested in converting people who have already made up their minds, but in the interests of reducing the animosity between the two camps, I have one question that I would like to have answered. In article <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton) writes: >I (and other BSDites) have been arguing against the GPL because I don't want >to force those restrictions, or any other restrictions, upon people who >choose to distribute /my/ software. I want to make it completely, >utterly, totally free. It doesn't matter whether IBM chooses to hijack >it, enlarge its size and reduce its speed by factors of twenty and sell >it for half a million dollars - I just don't care. I guess I do not understand the difference between IBM "hijacking" your program and a GPLer "hijacking" your program. Consider the two following scenarios: 1) If IBM uses something that you wrote, then they have restricted your software by making their version of the source unavailable, and making you pay money for the binaries. You still have your original version which you can do with whatever you want, and this is what remains totally free. 2) On the other hand, if someone incorporates something you wrote into a GPL program your software is also restricted, but in a different way. Nonetheless, you still have your original sources that have your original copyright, and this also remains totally free. As far as I can see it, the only difference between the two is that the nature of the restrictions are different. In either case, you still have your original code which is under your own less restrictive copyright, and if you wish you can enhance and modify it to have all of the features and capabilities of the more restricted version. Could someone explain why most people who write under the BSD copyright remain ambivalent about scenario 1, but find scenario 2 so objectionable? There is one important difference that I can see, and I make no claim that it has any basis in truth, but I would be interested in seeing some reaction from the BSD side of the fence. Since code flows more easily from BSD -> GPL and not the other way around, I wonder if there is a sense of resentment that BSD programs are contributing more to GPL projects than GPL programs contribute to BSD projects? Of course, another possibility is that the proselytizing from the more strident GPL adherents is responsible for this mess :-). -Eric -- "When Grigor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin." -F. Kafka