Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 10 Dec 1995 19:08:42 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <4afb7q$lgj@josie.abo.fi>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <4a54u5$jj5@josie.abo.fi> <DJ8DMn.3oM@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4aa6k2$9et@josie.abo.fi> <4aajus$nd@dyson.iquest.net>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorn.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29936 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10183
John S. Dyson, in <4aajus$nd@dyson.iquest.net>:
>In article <4aa6k2$9et@josie.abo.fi>, Mats Andtbacka <mandtbac@abo.fi> wrote:
[...]
>>I have _no_ clue what you're on about. The copyright and license
>>statement for the Linux kernel is right at the top of the tree, in the
>>COPYING file.
>But what do you do if you want to take individual source files if you
>want to make a derivative product?????
You read through the GPL and make sure you don't violate it.
>I cannot modify the copyright on files that I do not own.
That would be the case no matter what copyright the files were
under.
[...]
>>Define "separable". Of course you can distribute them each on a floppy
>>by themselves, but that would make no sense; one source file doth not
>>a kernel make. What would be the point?
>>Besides, that would arguably be a violation of the GPL. If you're
>>going to distribute the source, you have to distribute _all_ of it.
>Oh my, yet another restriction to the GPL.... That makes it even less
>desirable....
...To you. Some of us _want_ these restrictions; if I wanted people
to be able to do just anything with my code, there's always the
public domain.
[...]
>>Then if BSDI contains your code, it contains a copyright notice
>>crediting you as coauthor of BSDI, am I reading you correctly?
>Perhaps embedded into the binary... And the documentation saying that
>the work has some components that have been derived at least partially
>from works by <fill in here>.... Coauthor is too strong for sure.
Not much of an attribution that, IMHO.
[...]
>>Your way must be very narrow, John, that something so trifling can
>>obstruct it.
>Have you ever worked in a large company???... And please do not
>make personal judgements.
I've never been a professional programmer if that's what you mean; I
don't have the coding skill. I still think, however, that your
definition of "obstruction" is very odd indeed if distributing
binaries isn't an obstruction to you but distributing source is.
[...]
>Again, have you ever worked in a large company? It is not always easy to
>put something up for ftp. Some firewalls are very restrictive and
>ftp access is only available on a single machine, perhaps owned
>by another organization. Then the bureaucracy complicates things worse :-(.
If things are really that uptight then how on earth do you manage to
distribute binaries to outside of the company? Perhaps in such a
situation you should consider not distributing anything at all?
After all, the GPL never says you _must_ distribute either source or
binary, you know.
[...]
>>The LGPL is a different story; I'm not up to its specifics (I've never
>>yet had much cause to make or recompile shared libs). Applications
>>that might be in use for long times you'd _definitely_ want to have
>>source for, otherwise in a few years changing hardware platform might
>>prove a _real_ pain!
>Oh my gosh -- more complications: LGPL vs GPL...
One is for "ordinary programs", the other deals with libraries and
shared libraries; the differences make for some confusing legal
situations, but I understand the LGPL is supposedly just the GPL
written to take those situations in mind.
>>Note that the GPL never tells you what to charge for that CD.
>>Wanna slap on an extra US$ 20:- for the extra CD to hold the source?
>>The GPL doesn't object. If anything makes a difference in profit
>>margin, _you_ do. Forced to press another CD? Put "source code
>>provided AT NO EXTRA COST" on the cover, use it as a sales argument.
>>That's what I see Linux CD vendors doing all over the place.
>Competitiveness -- looks like competitivness isn't important???
?
I'm at a loss to see how getting an extra sales argument provided to
you for free lowers your competitiveness. Lots of people out there
_want_ that source, and are willing to pay for it; IMHO this
_increases_ your competitiveness.
>I happen to live in a country where capitalism and the free market
>still has some vestiges of life left.
Please, don't tempt me to make bad jokes like "unfortunately"...
>Note that even having another seperatly orderable product adds $$ to
>overhead. (I have noticed that some customers will shop carefully in
>order to save $5!??!?!? ).
On *operating systems*...? That's being penny-wise and pound-foolish
if ever I saw it; I'm not sure I'd _want_ that kind of customers, they
might prove a support nightmare.
[...]
>>How do I go about proving I do any such thing, especially considering
>>copyright law might very well vary between our two countries? I get
>>its general idea, however; I understand the purposes it was intended
>>to serve. Then again, that's not too hard.
>More complications of GPL, LGPL...
Complications to you, useful features to me; our mileages vary.
>>Yes, conditions I want to impose; I wouldn't want to give people as
>>free access to my work as the BSD copyright would give them, I want it
>>more restricted than that. The GPL seems to fit me well.
>And that is a valid point of disagreement... Bottom line, BSD is signficantly
>more free -- and that is the point that I have been trying to demonstrate:
>BSD -- freer copyright with fewer restrictions.
This depends on your definition of "free". The BSD copyright does mean
I have more freedom to distribute the stuff whichever way I like, but the
GPL assures me I have much greater freedom of access to the source.
To me, that's worth it.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
-- nin