Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:37879 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2272 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!auspex-gw!wally From: wally@Auspex.COM (Wally Bass) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <17740@auspex-gw.auspex.com> Date: 7 May 93 20:25:09 GMT References: <C63spB.BD@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Sender: news@auspex-gw.auspex.com Followup-To: comp.os.linux Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara Lines: 51 Nntp-Posting-Host: 144.48.13.2 In article <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) writes: [stuff deleted] > 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? You haven't said it explicitly, but your discussion seems to make the assumption that if an author does a 'bsd' style copyright, then (1) will happen, whereas if an author does a 'GPL' style copyright, then (2) will happen. What is more accurate, I think, is that if someone does a 'bsd' style copyright, then (1) will happen with probability X, whereas if someone does a 'GPL' style then (2) will happen with some different probability Y. Since 'GPL' is more restrictive on the second party than 'bsd' is, Y is clearly less than X. Some people believe (myself included) that Y is at least an order of magnitude less than X. Hence, the 'difference between the two is that, with the 'bsd' license, the original software, plus its derivatives, is likely to see much wider distribution, and hence benefit more people. With 'GPL', you will (a) have prevented anyone from benefitting 'too much', but you will (b) also have likely prevented anyone from benefitting at all. If (a) is really important to you, then by all means do a 'GPL', but don't kid yourself into believing that you are not also doing (b). So, I don't think that the problem is that scenario (2) is objectionable. The problem is, that with GPL, no such scenario ((1) or (2)) is likely to happen. Although it is true that 'GPL licensed' software from GNU is doing okay, I think that this is more of an anomoly than it is the general case. The 'Unix standard tools' market, with it's collection of frozen interfaces that the whole world is afraid to change, is the only market that I can think of where software can evolve as slowly as the GNU stuff has and still see a reasonable level of usage. Wally Bass