Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35689 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1916 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!paul From: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk (Paul) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <1993Apr23.110423.13203@cm.cf.ac.uk> Sender: news@cm.cf.ac.uk (Network News System) Organization: /usr/local/lib/rn/organisation References: <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se> <1993Apr20.135723.752@rcvie.co.at> <C5wFnJ.KMt@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 11:04:20 +0000 Lines: 60 In article <C5wFnJ.KMt@cs.columbia.edu> Blair MacIntyre <bm@cs.columbia.edu> writes: >>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:57:23 GMT, cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul) said: > >Wolf> In article <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se> >Wolf> d87-mal@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist) writes: >> (In reply to a complaint about the GNU GPL) >> >>Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence >>you have to accept if you want to use it? Is it because the code "is there" >>in front of you, looking so available? Most people annoyed by the GPL terms >>sounds like children in a candy store when they are told the candy is not >>free to take just because it is lying there under their noses. > >Wolf> Maybe because chief proponents of the FSF assume such a morally superior, >Wolf> holier-than-thou attitude about their supposedly "free" software which >Wolf> in reality isn't free at all but encumbered with a rather complex set >Wolf> of rules? > >I don't know how you define free, but I haven't paid money for any GNU >software recently. > >They never said it was public-domain, they said it was free. As in, no >money. As in, no money for the source. All you have to do is not >charge people for any modifications you make and let them have the >original source. Actually, this is totally wrong. GNU people will go to great pains to point out that FREE doesn't mean it costs nothing but that you are free to do what you wish with it. This is blatantly untrue, there are sever restrictions on your freedom regarding use of GPL software. I'm actually quite sympathetic to the aims of the GPL. As a struggling student I'm not that keen on the idea that some big corporation could take some really great code I kindly put in the public domain and make a packet from it, while I remain a struggling student (research students in the UK really struggle, believe me). What does annoy me though is the claims by people who don't really understand the aims of the GPL that it is the solution for all public domain code. The GPL was designed with a particular purpose in mind and 386bsd does not share these goals. The berkeley license is not intended to prevent big corporations from making a fast buck from other peoples work. In fact, it encourages use of new developoments by the industry as a whole, whoever they may be and whatever their intentions. On the other hand, my understanding of the GPL is to prevent big corporations from getting a strangehold on softare technology. They are quite welcome to use GPLed software so long as the technology within is available for all who use it and likewise with any enhancements they make. As I said, these are commendable aims which I agree with but there are cases, such as 386bsd, where this is too restrictive and the berkeley license is a more appropriate one. Don't claim the GPL maintains total freedom, it doesn't and is not meant to, it in fact has very specific restrictions for a specific reason. -- Paul Richards, University of Wales, College Cardiff Internet: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk