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!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4aajus$nd@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4aa6k2$9et@josie.abo.fi> Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 00:06:52 GMT Lines: 137 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30771 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10744 In article <4aa6k2$9et@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote: > >So you have; but I disagree that you'd be the only ones to have such a >structure. You make it sound like Linux developers would lack one; I'm >not a developer, but I rather doubt that's the case. > The original point of this discussion was about the "closed" environment of FreeBSD. I have been making my point very effectively that the enviroment in FreeBSD is relatively open. > >I have _no_ clue what you're on about. The copyright and license >statement for the Linux kernel is right at the top of the tree, in the >COPYING file. > But what do you do if you want to take individual source files if you want to make a derivative product????? I cannot modify the copyright on files that I do not own. It is easy to loose track -- and it is very simple to add at least a notice as to the license terms on each source file. That is a requirement on FreeBSD, because we (I) take such legalities seriously. > >Define "separable". Of course you can distribute them each on a floppy >by themselves, but that would make no sense; one source file doth not >a kernel make. What would be the point? > >Besides, that would arguably be a violation of the GPL. If you're >going to distribute the source, you have to distribute _all_ of it. > Oh my, yet another restriction to the GPL.... That makes it even less desirable.... >>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??? > >You're getting me more and more confused. Could you please explain >what you mean, in English? > English is my native language - and as you know most non-native speakers tend to do better :-). > >Then if BSDI contains your code, it contains a copyright notice >crediting you as coauthor of BSDI, am I reading you correctly? > Perhaps embedded into the binary... And the documentation saying that the work has some components that have been derived at least partially from works by <fill in here>.... Coauthor is too strong for sure. > >Your way must be very narrow, John, that something so trifling can >obstruct it. > Have you ever worked in a large company???... And please do not make personal judgements. > >Let's say you're distributing a program in binary form, OK? So you're >somehow getting a machine readable file (the executable) of something >between a few KB's and a few MB's in size from you to the people who >want to use it. Usually, the machine readable (compressed) source will >be between the same size to seldom more than ten times that size; in >practice, given that you'll want to distribute documentation as well, >your bandwidth would have to be *extremely* limited for source >distribution to be a technical problem. > Again, have you ever worked in a large company? It is not always easy to put something up for ftp. Some firewalls are very restrictive and ftp access is only available on a single machine, perhaps owned by another organization. Then the bureaucracy complicates things worse :-(. > >How can you guarantee binary availability without making it available >yourself? > > >>But what about applications that might be developed and used for long >>periods. Note that those can be built with GPL'ed libraries. > >The LGPL is a different story; I'm not up to its specifics (I've never >yet had much cause to make or recompile shared libs). Applications >that might be in use for long times you'd _definitely_ want to have >source for, otherwise in a few years changing hardware platform might >prove a _real_ pain! > Oh my gosh -- more complications: LGPL vs GPL... > >Note that the GPL never tells you what to charge for that CD. >Wanna slap on an extra US$ 20:- for the extra CD to hold the source? >The GPL doesn't object. If anything makes a difference in profit >margin, _you_ do. Forced to press another CD? Put "source code >provided AT NO EXTRA COST" on the cover, use it as a sales argument. >That's what I see Linux CD vendors doing all over the place. > Competitiveness -- looks like competitivness isn't important??? I happen to live in a country where capitalism and the free market still has some vestiges of life left. Note that even having another seperatly orderable product adds $$ to overhead. (I have noticed that some customers will shop carefully in order to save $5!??!?!? ). > >We seem to have a political disagreement here; IMHO if somebody >benefits from my "free" work, it is only common courtesy for them to >"give something back", if not to me personally then to the people for >whom I did my work in the first place - the "free software community", >if there is such a thing. IMHO it would be inconsiderate and rude for >somebody not to contribute back improvements made to something they >got for "free" like that; I would consider it mildly immoral. > Well I consider my contributions to FreeBSD as a gift to the community -- I am not so selfish. Note that I do work in the commercial realm also -- and am compensated fairly. > >How do I go about proving I do any such thing, especially considering >copyright law might very well vary between our two countries? I get >its general idea, however; I understand the purposes it was intended >to serve. Then again, that's not too hard. > More complications of GPL, LGPL... > >Yes, conditions I want to impose; I wouldn't want to give people as >free access to my work as the BSD copyright would give them, I want it >more restricted than that. The GPL seems to fit me well. > And that is a valid point of disagreement... Bottom line, BSD is signficantly more free -- and that is the point that I have been trying to demonstrate: BSD -- freer copyright with fewer restrictions. and FreeBSD -- more open development John dyson@freebsd.org