Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!gw1.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail From: dyson@inuxs.inh.att.com (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Message-ID: <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com> Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration) Nntp-Posting-Host: inuxs.inh.att.com Organization: AT&T References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a2kme$32d@josie.abo.fi> <DJ6IJE.78D@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:18:21 GMT Lines: 188 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30589 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10618 In article <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote: > >Rrright. Linux - one man; FreeBSD - a committee. Well, John, I don't >know what *your* experiences of interacting with committees are, but >_I_ would personally rather have just one person to worry about... > In my experience, the worst thing about the misuse of committees is that they try to create too much and get too involved with details. On FreeBSD we have been very successful at splitting things up into working groups, who cooperate (fairly interactively) with the other groups. This has been the easiest development effort that I have ever been involved with (regarding lack of hinderences.) I think that your argument is fairly theoretical and applies to certain structures -- but the the way that it is done on FreeBSD hasn't been a problem. Also, the question originally was regarding the openess of development, and at least we have a structure that directly supports communication amongst peers and people can individually make decisions to modify the source tree without "permission" -- however person who does the commit takes responsibilty for the results. > >> It is good that there is a >>credits file in Linux, I guess, but it is not really necessary -- nor is >>it in FreeBSD. But in the case of the VM system where I spent much >>of my life with very little or no money reward, the BSD copyright protects >>me from preditors that might try to take credit for it (and indemnifies >>me from any damages, etc.) BTW, what about those files in the Linux >>kernel without any copyright messages at all??? > >What about them? If their authors had wanted credit, they could have >put attributions in those files. If you want to know what license >they're under, it's the same GPL as the rest of the kernel source - >including those source files that have explicit copyright notices. > First, it is very easy to put a copyright message at the top of every file describing the terms or a pointer to the terms of use. I would not risk my business using files without any copyright notices at all. That is a bit sloppy considering how hard it is to establish a copyright policy. > >Whether or not you explicitly spell it out in each source file, the >license on the Linux kernel is the GPL, and the copyrights are held by >the authors unless otherwise explicitly stated. > How do I know that, since the files are seperable from the rest of the kernel? Or aren't they. If they aren't then the software is tied up and not re-usable (I know that the software can be seperated though.) The other senerio is that I have to add a copyright to the file -- but whose??? I cannot add a copyright for another individual, and also some opinions state that a file without a copyright is copyrighted such that copying is not permissible. >> >>But the BSD copyright guarantees it. >> >Rrright. So if I anonymously release something under a BSD copyright, >I'm guaranteed to get credit for this work I've never put my name on. >I think not. But the difference in practice is nil - put your name in >a GPL'ed source file, and the GPL protects it like it protects the >rest of that source. > Well, I think that you are playing games here regarding the BSD copyright :-). Read the BSD copyright -- it says that redistributions must contain the disclaimer and copyright -- which usually contains the names of the authors. > >The reason I've never read it is that I've never had the occasion - >my Linux box runs no BSD-copyrighted software (to the best of my >knowledge). I tend to read copyrights only when I install and/or >compile some new package, and I've never yet installed BSD software >on that box; so far, diverse GNU stuff has done nicely in its place. > >If they use your code and don't disclose that they've done so, you're >guaranteed not to be credited for it. Did I misread you somewhere, >surely you didn't mean to say _that_? > Redistributions in binary form must contain the copyright notice. >> There is very little that they can do to it that I can't either. >>In essence, they can make proprietary mods that they feel can give >>them an edge -- and that is okay with me. I can do the same mods if >>I want. There is very little "magic" in any kernel that I know of. > >Well, surprise - you can do just the same with GPL'ed software. Only >hitch is, the product you then release pretty much has to be GPL'ed as >well - if you can put up with that, you can do nearly anything you >please with GPL'ed source. > But what about binaries -- you know -- the stuff that people actually use. The distribution of source code "requirement" still gets in my way. What about GPLed code that isn't so common -- how can I guarantee its availability without making it available myself. > >By uploading it to ftp.cdrom.com, which runs BSD and hence will never >go down. ;-) > But they will probably find it to be not so useful and a waste of space :-). > >Seriously, John, in 99% of any cases either one of us is interested in >this is a nonissue, since Unix software is still traditionally >distributed as source _only_. I've not run into any binary-only >distribution of any of the *BSD's so far, have you? > But what about applications that might be developed and used for long periods. Note that those can be built with GPL'ed libraries. > >>Hmmm... There is quite a space crunch on the latest WC cdroms lately :-), >>I guess that they will just need to press more of them. > >One more CD in a set of four or five to hold the compressed source for >what's on the other ones. For crying out loud, there are *games* being >delivered on no less than *seven* CD's already! Pressing one CD was >last I heard of it still cheap. > But it does make a difference in profit margin -- especially considering the differences in volume between a seven CD game and a 2-3 CD software distribution. > >Even if you've no idea what they've done? Even if you lack the >manpower and resources to develop a parallel to whatever they did? > I can look at the effects -- I happen to understand enough about what I have done and the portions of the system well enough that I don't think that it would be easy at all for a competitor to outperform that stuff by very much at all.. (At least I can correct the code quickly.) > >If you really can, then I salute you; but if that sort of coding is >really doable for most developers, how come anybody still bothers to >reverse-engineer anything? > Really?? -- I am not talking about reverse-engineering... I am talking about someone taking my work, improving upon it, and reselling it. By analyzing the performance and activity of the system, I can probably figure out what they are doing or the improvements to my code that they have made. It is likely that I can reproduce the work easier than reverse-engineering. However, if they happen to value add another feature -- like some kind of fancy networking thingy or somesuch -- they deserve to own their addition and GPL/BSD should be their choice. I believe that they have the right to take the products of my work (if I give them permission -- which the BSD Copyright allows) and reuse it as long as I get credit for the pieces that I do -- whether or not they decided to release their stuff to the public is a freedom that they morally should have. In essence, I believe that they should be minimally encumbered by my political or social beliefs. > >And stars know it took me a bit of brainwork to grok the GPL; but I >wasn't using the word properly, I apologize for being unclear. I meant >to say the GPL takes a more "legal", cut-in-stone approach, as opposed >to merely trusting that "nobody will do anything nasty with this >code"; it spells out what is and isn't allowed. > And if your are not a lawyer, I would be very impressed if you understood the ramifications of the GPL, considering the large amount of legaleze in it. Also, I do not know what doing "something nasty" means. That is a value judgement that apparently you and I don't agree... My position is that I am allowing the use of my code with as little hinderence as possible -- as long as other individuals don't take credit for it. GPL establishes additional conditions. > >"Written by lawyers and is very simple" - isn't that a self- >contradicting statement? ;-) > Read it -- it is very simple. > >But most importantly, that extra complexity probably gives you some >advantage that the simpler BSD copyright doesn't; the GPL goes into >great detail on what your rights are, as author, user, or >distributor. > BSD Copyright: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: < Following 4 very simple conditions regarding credit/attribution> < Disclaimer about liability > Only a few lines and sounds very very simple to me. Significantly less than a page. John dyson@freebsd.org