Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Adam wrote:
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"
as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it
"unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".
Don't believe RMSs FUD. You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD
licensed
code is still there. Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD
licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.
Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and
everyone to use. That is free. The code they added to it is not
free,
but the BSD licensed code is. The GPL is not about releasing free
code,
its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under
the GPL.
Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really
change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when
it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use
it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been
originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,
his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.
Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with
GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if
Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a
closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes
make the free software work on the device in the first place, the
software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the
software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to
buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the
originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,
then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software
unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it
can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed
software.
Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that
incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a
particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at
all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,
that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the
Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.
You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in
computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL
FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any
devices that have been delivered with software based on free software
and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.
There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice
in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It
all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no
one-and-only-free license.
opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"
And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL
should not
be labeled "free" in the first place.
I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect
the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight
a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the
"viral" character of the GPL... :-P
regards,
Tobias W.
