Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.uwa.edu.au!classic.iinet.com.au!swing.iinet.net.au!news.uoregon.edu!news.jsums.edu!despina.neptune.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.eng.convex.com!not-for-mail From: ldaffner@convex.com (Larry Daffner) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Date: 8 Dec 1995 12:08:24 -0600 Organization: Engineering, Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx USA Lines: 103 Message-ID: <4a9uuo$acs@muirwood.convex.com> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <DJ6y7H.MIE@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a6fgo$6lg@agate.berkeley.edu> <4a7d9p$860@muirwood.convex.com> <4a84gs$df@dyson.iquest.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: muirwood.convex.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30720 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10715 comp.unix.advocacy:12336 comp.unix.misc:20160 In <4a84gs$df@dyson.iquest.net> root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes: >In article <4a7d9p$860@muirwood.convex.com>, >Larry Daffner <ldaffner@convex.com> wrote: >> >>1) If you distribute a binary for GPL-covered software, you must >>ensure that the recipients have access to the source. It doesn't mean >>that you can't do binary only distributions of say, emacs. But if you >>do, and the recipient wants source, it's your responsibility to make >>sure they can get it, and make any improvements they wish. >> >Encumberance #1... worse than the BSD copyright... No this is not an encumberance. It just says that I have to allow the same freedom to someone else as I myself have. So, for instance, if I compile emacs, and distribute it as a binary, it's my responsibility to let people know how they can get the source code, so that they can make their own modifications if they so desire. >>2) Any derivatives of GPL works are GPL'ed. IE, If you use GPL code in >>a product, the product is placed under the GPL. That is, I can't take >>your GPL code, use it to make my own app and distribute it in binary >>only form. (Note that this is a lie in the case of GNU libraries, the >>restrictions are different). >> >Encumberance #2... worse than the BSD copyright... So -- what is the >difference, more differences and complications? Again, this just means I can't take GPL'ed code and use it to write my own program, I can't distribute it and keep the source code private at the same time. IE< I can't use GPL code in a project which I don't intend distributing as a binary only and hording the code. I shouldn't be using someone else's code to make my wn secrets, anyways. >>3) If you distribute GPL-ed software, you should make the recipients >>aware of the above two rights. >> >Encumberance #3... worse than the BSD copyright... Oh, so now making people aware of their rights is an encumberance? I see, so I shouldn't tell youwhat the speed limit is? I shouldn't tell you about the warranty you got with your new TV? Those are encumberances too, according to your definition. >The work that I do remains freely available in the BSD copyright. The >biggest difference is that I am not causing others to act just like >me. See, I believe in individual freedom -- and I don't want to restrict >others in their use of my code -- because indeed BSD copyrighted is a less >restricted gift. How can my software magically become unavailable???Hmmm??? Well, do you want someone to start making proprietary, binary only distributions of your software, and keeping the source secret? IE, making money off your hard work? I know I don't want anyone stealing my work. >If someone modifies my software and wants to keep it private, why should >I try to compel that person to make their modifications public? -- sounds >a bit like "The GPLers know best for society" and this appears to be a form >of coercion to me. Note that my work is still available for thepublic good It does NOT say anywhere in the GPL that you have to make any modifications available. I am perfectly free to take GNU make, and do any sort of ugly hacking on it that I wish. However, *IF* I choose to distribute it, I can't just give someone the binary and keep them from the source code. THAT is what the GPL means. >even though copy(s) are stashed away with someone else's proprietary >modifications. I believe in the concept of the ownership of intellectual >property and I think that lots of other people do also. My creativity and >control ends pretty much when I give the "gift", mostly limited by the >constraint that my creativity is given credit. Note that not everything I do >is such a "gift" and I make the decision as to what I want to give away. My >freedom is restricted by other's use of GPL, for example, if I would like to >give away my code that could be dependent on a GPL design. I do not >GPLed code as desireable as a "gift" received by me -- (given the same >quality of code BSD copyrighted vs. GPLed.) The GPL only restricts the distribution of code using the GPL when it would violate the above. Can you give me an example of how this would be restrictive? >>It may be a bit covered in legalese these days, but the GPL is not as >>restrictive as everyone here seems to claim it is. >> >But you are bound by the legalese... and it is a fairly complex >document. And my point is demonstrated herein :-). So use the earlier, less legalese version of the licence. The essence is still the same. Unfortunately, in today's society, any document which wants to have any hope of being even slightly enforcable has to use that sort of legalese. The essence is still in the first 3 paragraphs. I guess what it comes down to is what does restrictive mean. In the GPL case, it means not denying people the rights which you yourself have been granted to the software in question. From my point of view, this means that if I get a program which was released under the GPL, and there's some feature which I absolutely can't stand, or some bug which prevents it from being useful, or what have you, I can get the source and make changes. I tend to think of that as more open than restrictive. But that's just me. -Larry -- Larry Daffner - Software Engineer | email: ldaffner@convex.com | Convex Computer Corporation | tel: (214)497-4274 / home: (214)380-4382 | Brook's Law: Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.