Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:37801 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2258 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!usc!cheshire.oxy.edu!opus From: opus@cheshire.oxy.edu (David Giller) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <1993May7.092236.27397@cheshire.oxy.edu> Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 References: <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> <1993May3.093155.10176@cheshire.oxy.edu> <1s9pg8$17qj@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 09:22:36 GMT Lines: 130 mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) wrote: >In article <1993May3.093155.10176@cheshire.oxy.edu> >opus@cheshire.oxy.edu (David Giller) writes: >> >> But if they gave it away for FREE, including source, and insured that >> noone else charged for it, you'd take issue. Yeah, makes sense to >> me. > >You've still missed the point. The people taking a truly `free' >program (remembering that GPL proponents stress the `free' refers to >`freedom', not `price'), making some small modification to it, and >putting a GPL on it and the changes (and frequently not sending the >changes back to the author) are *violating their own principle*; >specifically, they are adding more restrictions to an already free >program. No, I haven't missed the point, you are inventing one, and as many others hae pointed out, you just don't understand the principle behind the GPL. The freedom that the GPL seeks to protect is the free distribution and use of code. The GPL has NO interest in maintaining some abstract notion of 'absolute freedom', especially as you choose to define it. That may be the ideal goal of RMS, but the FSF isn't foolish enough to know that that is feasible. The 'freedom' which you accuse them of violating is the freedom to restrict the code. Yes, the GPL restricts this freedom. That is the very point. The GPL is a compromise: It makes one (controversial) restriction in an attempt to prevent further restriction. It is a narrow world you see if you consider this to be a 'violation of their own principle'. Neither the FSF nor the GPL are even remotely interested in preserving anyone's 'rights' to charge money to lisence software. This is simply not a freedom they are interested in preserving, and is certainly not part of 'their own principle'. They may indeed be violating one of YOUR principles, but who cares? Not even your own lisence keeps them from doing that. >That is the issue at hand. > >> You arrogant fool. That's all I can say. You give them the rights >> to do anything to your code, INCLUDING RESTRICT IT IN ANY WAY, and >> then you get angry and insult them when they do. > >You're the only person I see who is `angry' and `insult[ing]' people. Yes, I am indeed quite angry, and I did in fact insult you, and I will continue to be angry, and possibly because of this continue to insult you while you repeatedly spray your slanerous statements regarding some as-yet nameless nultitudes who supports the GPL code, insinuating that they are hypocritical and self-important. Look at the facts: - The lisence you support explicitly allows any agent to use the code in any way, including to restrict its distribution, including making modifications and retaining these modifications as proprietary, and including charging money to lisence the code, in both source and binary form. You merely hope they won't do this. - Consider a company which does all these things. You claim you have absolutely no problem with that, and you in fact support it. You would no doubt agree that this is a natural, legal, perfectly honest way to do business, and, again, you explicitly allow it. - What happens if they change their mind, and in fact ease some of these restrictions. They still charge to lisence the source (including their enhancements and bug fixes), but anyone is free to distribute binaries, provided they don't charge for them, and don't base derivative works on them. Presumably you wouldn't mind, and would encourage this as well. - What happens if they do the same for the source? - What happens if, in fact, they even allow you to charge for source/binaries, as long as you don't make derivative works from them? - What happens if they even allow you to make derivative works from them, provided you don't place restrictions on the derivative work any more stringent than those on the source they came from? Yet you dislike the last case, even to the point of nearly calling it dishonest. You seem to have three bases for this. 1. You claim that this type of lisencing, while purportedly aiming to make the code free, is in fact hypocritical because it still restricts the code from some uses. This is meaningless, because there is noting about either my hypothetical example nor the GPL which claims to be protecting all freedom. It is protecting the freedom of distribution and use of the code, not freedom of commercial gain using the code. 2. You repeatedly complain that none of the programmers who contribute code to the GPLed version of the code kick these contributions back to you. As has been said before, you explicitly allow this in your lisence, and even encourage this behaviour of commercial companies. If you don't want people to do this, you should place such a restriction in the lisence... but then, it would look an awful lot like the GPL, now wouldn't it? Frankly, it seems to me that the only reason this bothers you is because you can SEE the code, you just can't use it. 3. You also suggest that those who release a version of your cod with the GPL hae 'stolen' your code and taken credit for it. First off, they have stolen nothing: All your code is still available under the lisence YOU gave it. What they have done is made changes and released a DERIVATIVE work -- which, again, you EXPLICITLY ALLOW -- and have placed whatever restrictions on that work they want, namely the GPL. Still, you don't like this while praising the company which does the exact same thing (releasing a derivative work with a more restrictive lisence) with different details (namely, the particular lisence used). Now, I say ONCE MORE, since you ignored it the last time: The GPL and BSD lisences have similar but different aims, and are appropriate in different situations. It is incidental that the details of the two lisences mean that GPL projects can use code and enhancements from BSD projects without violating the BSD lisence, but BSD projects can not use code or enhancements from GPL without either changing the lisence for the project to the GPL or breaking the terms of the GPL by allowing the code or enhancements to be restricted and lisenced by any commercial agent. These are the FACTS. If you don't like them, change your lisence so that the GPL can't use your code either. But STOP making erroneous claims (such as that the GPL violates its own principles) so we can stop correcting you. -Dave -- David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to 1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. -------------------------------opus@oxy.edu