Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!ix.netcom.com!howland.erols.net!ais.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.uio.no!news.apfel.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!nntp.gmd.de!borneo!veit
From: veit@borneo.gmd.de (Holger Veit)
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: 29 Jan 1997 16:07:54 GMT
Organization: GMD - German National Research Center for Information Technology
Lines: 76
Sender: veit@simi (Holger Veit)
Message-ID: <5cnskq$qhm@omega.gmd.de>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5cl66d$l52@web.nmti.com> <32EE3C3C.5534B736@indiana.edu> <5clcjd$l34@cynic.portal.ca> <5cmiv4$iuf@garuda.synet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: simi.gmd.de
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154948 comp.os.linux.networking:66525 comp.os.linux.setup:94457 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2103 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51294 comp.os.os2.advocacy:264172
In article <5cmiv4$iuf@garuda.synet.net>, imdave@synet.net (Dave Bodenstab) writes:
|> In article <5clcjd$l34@cynic.portal.ca>,
|> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.portal.ca> wrote:
|> >In article <32EE3C3C.5534B736@indiana.edu>,
|> >Lars Hofhansl <lhofhans@indiana.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> >>But when you
|> >>distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
|> >>on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
|> >>this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
|> >>entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
|> >>it."
|> >
|> >Right. In other words, if I have a 10,000 line program and add 500
|> >lines of GPL'd code, I must put all of my 10,000 lines under the
|> >GPL. If some of that 10,000 lines is under a licence that conflicts
|> >with the GPL, I simply cannot combine the code and distribute it,
|> >period. I exult in such freedom! :-/
|> >
|> Then why did you add the 500 lines of GPL'ed code? It was your
|> choice, was it not? If you use 500 lines of another person's code,
|> then you need their permission. If you don't like their terms, then
|> don't use it. I don't understand why people feel that they have a
|> right to use other's work, and are offended when the original author
|> puts conditions on its use.
|>
|> In the case that the GPL conflicts with another license... you're
|> correct -- you can't use it. So what's the problem? There are
|> many things that we "can't do" because of legal requirements.
See in comparison the BSD copyright: What it says in principle, is the
following: "We have written something nice here, and you get the source
to have a look at it and/or modify it. You can then give out your
modified code as source or binary, and make money if you like, but you
must tell everyone that this is based on our code. And you are responsible
for everything you give out, not we, so you get sued if the code is buggy
and you have uncritically given it to someone."
This is much more acceptable to me from the viewpoint of a programmer, as it
does not take away any freedom from me (but nor does it free me from
any responsibility). I can look at professional code (which is debatable in
some corners of the BSD code, of course), and base my own work on it. Whether
this is 500 lines out of 10000, or a single foreign line and 10000 own lines
(the GPL will taint my own 10000 lines then) is no real difference. I can
try to sell this code and distribute as a binary without restriction and
save my investment. Of course, I could try to rip-off people by, say, taking
the BSD "ftp" source code, compile it without change, and sell it. People
will then ask about the novelty or a copyright infringement (of course I
have replaced the nasty "Copyright by the Regents..." with "Copyright by me").
However, the same will undoubtedly happen with GPL software. Fact is, for
instance, that some companies already make an awful lot of money by offering
a modified version of gcc for special single-chip-processors. How do they do
this? "You don't have to pay for our gcc source, as GPL demands, but we think
that using it is so complicated that you need our support contract for $3000,
and without that, you won't get the (special) gcc code." No joke, reality.
Now do you want to pay for the artwork to write a compiler backend based on
some public compiler, or for some artificial "support contract" made to
undermine the GPL restriction?
Billions of $$$ are used for reinventing the wheels due to tainted GPL software;
billions of $$$ are likewise made with products based on BSD and the similarly
copyrighted X11. Now ask about the real impact of GPL: did the intended effect
of getting a pool of free (and staying free) and reusable software actually
happen? Infact, you have a large set of Unixtools from GNU, and quite a number
of substandard free software hacks written by students or hobbyists
which could barely be sold for money at all. And besides there is no public
high-quality software (BSD and X11 with their different policy don't count).
Would say: receive the F rating and sit down.
Dr.-Ing. Holger Veit | INTERNET: Holger.Veit@gmd.de
| | / GMD - German National Research | Phone: (+49) 2241 14 2448 or 2039
|__| / Center for Information Technology| Fax: (+49) 2241 14 2242
| | / Schloss Birlinghoven | XFree86/OS2 goes public!
| |/ D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany | V3.2 from ftp.xfree86.org
WWW: http://borneo.gmd.de/~veit/ | /pub/XFree86/3.2/binaries/OS2