On Tuesday, 17 August 2010, at 07:53:22 (+0100), Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > His opinion of that BSD license, like any other, is the same: it > > is not Good and Right because it fails to guarantee the freedoms > > of software recipients. > > An important consideration to make in such statements is that that would > only be true if one is talking about the original BSD license... > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD > > ...which includes what's known as the "obnoxious advertising clause". Actually, that would only be true if he concluded that the original BSD license was non-free license. It is a free software license. It's just "permissive" and "non-copyleft" and is "incompatible with the GPL." The modified BSD license is also "permissive" and "non-copyleft," but it's GPL compatible. That's why he says it's "reasonable." (Yes, he has a practical argument as well, and a valid one, but that's not his primary reason.) > What most people think of when they say "bsd license" nowadays is > actually the "Modified BSD" or "three-clause BSD" license. > > If one reads what he writes about it in... > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD > > ... one can actually read an endorsement: > > If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software > license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. > However, it is risky to recommend use of ?the BSD license?, > because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the > flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can > suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the > revised BSD license are more or less equivalent. > > This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD > license. He supports use of the modified BSD license IFF[1] you require a free software license which is non-copyleft. That's like saying, "If you refuse to walk everywhere, at least drive something that runs on biodiesel." That's not the same as saying, "I support your right to drive your car." If you won't do things his way, or in special circumstances where his Free Software movement benefits from doing things differently, other licenses are permissible. But those are situations where it's Necessary not to do things Right. Being the "next best option" doesn't make something Good and Right. (And not being Good and Right doesn't mean Evil either...any free license is better than a non-free license.) His perfect world would entail ALL software being GPL'd, all documentation being FDL'd, etc. But he's a pragmatic strategist; he knows that compromises must be made to progress toward the goal. Trust me. I work for UCB *and* LBL (which you'll find mentioned in your first link) with some of the people who created BSD, and I've spoken to RMS in person about this very subject. I know where he's coming from, and I know that we have fundamental differences on what constitutes Freedom and how best to use licenses to achieve it. Anything one may interpret as an "endorsement" of a non-GPL software license is simply a means to an end (e.g., popularizing a Free replacement to multiple Proprietary media formats). Michael [1] "iff" means "if, and only if, ..." -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <m...@kainx.org> Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can bend over for Blue Cross, and you can bend over for Kaiser. Blue Cross is nice because they give you two ways to bend over." -- anonymous co-worker ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
