*BSD News Article 15770


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:37801 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2258
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!cheshire.oxy.edu!opus
From: opus@cheshire.oxy.edu (David Giller)
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
Message-ID: <1993May7.092236.27397@cheshire.oxy.edu>
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
References: <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> <1993May3.093155.10176@cheshire.oxy.edu> <1s9pg8$17qj@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 May 1993 09:22:36 GMT
Lines: 130

mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) wrote:
>In article <1993May3.093155.10176@cheshire.oxy.edu>
>opus@cheshire.oxy.edu (David Giller) writes:
>>
>> But if they gave it away for FREE, including source, and insured that
>> noone else charged for it, you'd take issue.  Yeah, makes sense to
>> me.
>
>You've still missed the point.  The people taking a truly `free'
>program (remembering that GPL proponents stress the `free' refers to
>`freedom', not `price'), making some small modification to it, and
>putting a GPL on it and the changes (and frequently not sending the
>changes back to the author) are *violating their own principle*;
>specifically, they are adding more restrictions to an already free
>program.

No, I haven't missed the point, you are inventing one, and as many
others hae pointed out, you just don't understand the principle behind
the GPL.

The freedom that the GPL seeks to protect is the free distribution and
use of code.  The GPL has NO interest in maintaining some abstract
notion of 'absolute freedom', especially as you choose to define it.
That may be the ideal goal of RMS, but the FSF isn't foolish enough to
know that that is feasible.

The 'freedom' which you accuse them of violating is the freedom to
restrict the code.  Yes, the GPL restricts this freedom.  That is the
very point.  The GPL is a compromise: It makes one (controversial)
restriction in an attempt to prevent further restriction.  It is a
narrow world you see if you consider this to be a 'violation of their
own principle'.  Neither the FSF nor the GPL are even remotely
interested in preserving anyone's 'rights' to charge money to lisence
software.  This is simply not a freedom they are interested in
preserving, and is certainly not part of 'their own principle'.  They
may indeed be violating one of YOUR principles, but who cares?  Not
even your own lisence keeps them from doing that.

>That is the issue at hand.
>
>> You arrogant fool.  That's all I can say.  You give them the rights
>> to do anything to your code, INCLUDING RESTRICT IT IN ANY WAY, and
>> then you get angry and insult them when they do.
>
>You're the only person I see who is `angry' and `insult[ing]' people.

Yes, I am indeed quite angry, and I did in fact insult you, and I will
continue to be angry, and possibly because of this continue to insult
you while you repeatedly spray your slanerous statements regarding
some as-yet nameless nultitudes who supports the GPL code, insinuating
that they are hypocritical and self-important.  Look at the facts:

- The lisence you support explicitly allows any agent to use the code
in any way, including to restrict its distribution, including making
modifications and retaining these modifications as proprietary, and
including charging money to lisence the code, in both source and
binary form.  You merely hope they won't do this.

- Consider a company which does all these things.  You claim you have
absolutely no problem with that, and you in fact support it.  You
would no doubt agree that this is a natural, legal, perfectly honest
way to do business, and, again, you explicitly allow it.

- What happens if they change their mind, and in fact ease some of
these restrictions.  They still charge to lisence the source
(including their enhancements and bug fixes), but anyone is free to
distribute binaries, provided they don't charge for them, and don't
base derivative works on them.  Presumably you wouldn't mind, and
would encourage this as well.

- What happens if they do the same for the source?

- What happens if, in fact, they even allow you to charge for
source/binaries, as long as you don't make derivative works from them?

- What happens if they even allow you to make derivative works from
them, provided you don't place restrictions on the derivative work any
more stringent than those on the source they came from?

Yet you dislike the last case, even to the point of nearly calling it
dishonest.  You seem to have three bases for this.

1. You claim that this type of lisencing, while purportedly aiming to
make the code free, is in fact hypocritical because it still restricts
the code from some uses.  This is meaningless, because there is noting
about either my hypothetical example nor the GPL which claims to be
protecting all freedom.  It is protecting the freedom of distribution
and use of the code, not freedom of commercial gain using the code.

2. You repeatedly complain that none of the programmers who contribute
code to the GPLed version of the code kick these contributions back to
you.  As has been said before, you explicitly allow this in your
lisence, and even encourage this behaviour of commercial companies.
If you don't want people to do this, you should place such a
restriction in the lisence... but then, it would look an awful lot
like the GPL, now wouldn't it?  Frankly, it seems to me that the only
reason this bothers you is because you can SEE the code, you just
can't use it.

3. You also suggest that those who release a version of your cod with
the GPL hae 'stolen' your code and taken credit for it.  First off,
they have stolen nothing: All your code is still available under the
lisence YOU gave it.  What they have done is made changes and released
a DERIVATIVE work -- which, again, you EXPLICITLY ALLOW -- and have
placed whatever restrictions on that work they want, namely the GPL.
Still, you don't like this while praising the company which does the
exact same thing (releasing a derivative work with a more restrictive
lisence) with different details (namely, the particular lisence used).

Now, I say ONCE MORE, since you ignored it the last time: The GPL and
BSD lisences have similar but different aims, and are appropriate in
different situations.  It is incidental that the details of the two
lisences mean that GPL projects can use code and enhancements from BSD
projects without violating the BSD lisence, but BSD projects can not
use code or enhancements from GPL without either changing the lisence
for the project to the GPL or breaking the terms of the GPL by
allowing the code or enhancements to be restricted and lisenced by any
commercial agent.

These are the FACTS.  If you don't like them, change your lisence so
that the GPL can't use your code either.  But STOP making erroneous
claims (such as that the GPL violates its own principles) so we can
stop correcting you.

-Dave
-- 
David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light
Occidental College    | bulb?  A: Three.  One to replace the bulb, and two to
1600 Campus Road      | fend off all the Californians trying to share the
Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. -------------------------------opus@oxy.edu