Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!szdc!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@indy.celebration.net> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux vs whatever Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:33:33 -0800 Organization: AT&T Lines: 72 Message-ID: <32EE9A49.70E9@indy.celebration.net> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <5c39sk$ddl@troma.rv.tis.com> <5c8jlm$50u@cynic.portal.ca> <m23evrulla.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <32EA25AB.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <5qC7y0gTzDLB091yn@ibm.net> <32ECB442.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <32ED1866.34F02393@indiana.edu> <32ED4897.193@indy.celebration.net> <877mkxslwx.fsf@localhost.xs4all.nl> Reply-To: dyson@indy.celebration.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154988 comp.os.linux.networking:66552 comp.os.linux.setup:94485 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2109 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51311 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264233 Peter Mutsaers wrote: > > >> On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:32:10 -0800, "John S. Dyson" > >> <dyson@indy.celebration.net> said: > > JSD> When improvements are made to or technology is added to GPLed > JSD> software in order to gain some competitive advantage, those > JSD> changes become encumbered by the GPLs redistribution > JSD> requirements. It is possible that those changes are a > JSD> considerable body of work in themselves. Even though the > JSD> original GPLed work continues to be available in it's > JSD> entirety, it is considered to be "hoarding" by many GPL > JSD> advocates if the source code of that new, added body of work > JSD> would not redistributed. GPL encumbers the new source code > JSD> (or IP) by forcing it's redistribution if the object code is > JSD> distributed. > > In theory GPL is bad in commercial circumstances, where distributing > source code may be a problem. > That theory is practice in alot of situations. At my work, for example, we generally cannot use GPLed code in distributed product. > > The boycott of GPL means a slowdown of development which seems far > more damaging to commercial use. > It isn't a "hatred" of GPL, but the problem with modification and upgrading the code for sale. We encourage that on FreeBSD. > > Also in commercial settings GPL'd code is used quite a lot. I know of > many commercial packages (such as several expensive real-time kernels, > OSI stack software, etc. etc.) that use gcc, gdb etc. Also GNU stuff > is used a lot in commercial environments. I've worked for 4 companies > and in all of them GNU products (including Linux at 2 sites) were used > extensively. > I don't think that I have argued much against GPLed code in a development environment. > > Also commercial products begin to appear for Linux more and more. Not > much for FreeBSD. Are there any real and important examples of use of > *BSD stuff in commercial environments or applications that are > possible because it is not under the GPL? > Yes, there are companies that have modified FreeBSD for their work. Off the top of my head, a router manufacturer uses FreeBSD and doesn't have to disclose their derivative works!!! (Unlike GPL licensed code.) > > This eternal anti GPL discussion appears to me to have only > theoretical value, which is damaging to FreeBSD's progress (take the > ISDN part as an example, resulting in many that went with Linux in the > Netherlands because of lack of support for ISDN under FreeBSD). > Unfortunately, GPL keeps many many companies for including the code into their code base. We will all hear the cases where GPLed code is used, but not often when a real, commercial product has been chosen in lieu of GPLed code. Look at the cases where you can license the use of a "proprietary OS" that has been modified by you -- but with GPLed code (specifically Linux), you don't even have a party to get a license from -- too many people own the code. With GPL you pay the penalty of having to disclose your code if it is a derivative work of the GPLed code :-(. The penalty of giving away your IP is more expensive (many times) than just buying a commercial OS or using a BSD licensed OS. John