Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc 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!news.sol.net!uniserve!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4a84gs$df@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <DJ6y7H.MIE@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a6fgo$6lg@agate.berkeley.edu> <4a7d9p$860@muirwood.convex.com> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 01:31:08 GMT Lines: 64 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30665 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10679 comp.unix.advocacy:12310 comp.unix.misc:20153 In article <4a7d9p$860@muirwood.convex.com>, Larry Daffner <ldaffner@convex.com> wrote: > >I'd like to pint out something here. The GPL is NOT very complicated >at all. There are 3 main points to the GPL. > >1) If you distribute a binary for GPL-covered software, you must >ensure that the recipients have access to the source. It doesn't mean >that you can't do binary only distributions of say, emacs. But if you >do, and the recipient wants source, it's your responsibility to make >sure they can get it, and make any improvements they wish. > Encumberance #1... worse than the BSD copyright... >2) Any derivatives of GPL works are GPL'ed. IE, If you use GPL code in >a product, the product is placed under the GPL. That is, I can't take >your GPL code, use it to make my own app and distribute it in binary >only form. (Note that this is a lie in the case of GNU libraries, the >restrictions are different). > Encumberance #2... worse than the BSD copyright... So -- what is the difference, more differences and complications? >3) If you distribute GPL-ed software, you should make the recipients >aware of the above two rights. > Encumberance #3... worse than the BSD copyright... > >How is this complicated? All it says is free software remains free. > The work that I do remains freely available in the BSD copyright. The biggest difference is that I am not causing others to act just like me. See, I believe in individual freedom -- and I don't want to restrict others in their use of my code -- because indeed BSD copyrighted is a less restricted gift. How can my software magically become unavailable??? Hmmm??? If someone modifies my software and wants to keep it private, why should I try to compel that person to make their modifications public? -- sounds a bit like "The GPLers know best for society" and this appears to be a form of coercion to me. Note that my work is still available for the public good even though copy(s) are stashed away with someone else's proprietary modifications. I believe in the concept of the ownership of intellectual property and I think that lots of other people do also. My creativity and control ends pretty much when I give the "gift", mostly limited by the constraint that my creativity is given credit. Note that not everything I do is such a "gift" and I make the decision as to what I want to give away. My freedom is restricted by other's use of GPL, for example, if I would like to give away my code that could be dependent on a GPL design. I do not GPLed code as desireable as a "gift" received by me -- (given the same quality of code BSD copyrighted vs. GPLed.) >And what's so tough about an anonymous FTP site with source code? Additional cost..., since I take such requirements very seriously. How do I guarantee it, without incurring cost??? It has to be budgeted. >It may be a bit covered in legalese these days, but the GPL is not as >restrictive as everyone here seems to claim it is. > But you are bound by the legalese... and it is a fairly complex document. And my point is demonstrated herein :-). John dyson@freebsd.org