NOTE: NOT FLAMEBAIT!
There's often an assumption of moral superiority of the GPL from the GPL camp. The GPL spreads software "freedom" by way of sword, whereas BSD asks that derived works keep with the spirit of BSD (but you are free to walk in peace if you choose not to).
I'm glad Theo de Raadt is challenging the moral superiority of the GPL in a public way and not giving these guys a free pass. He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer, and so people are more willing to listen to his point
Other than the fact that this is a flamebit, you seem to have missed the obvious moral superiority that BSD developers believe they have. If they didn't, Theo wouldn't be yelling about how wrong the GPL is.
The GPL is a militant license. I totally agree. It's just as militant as the companies it was designed to fight against. It was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without returning the favor. Most companies would not do that without being forced. Look at Microsoft use BSD code in its operating system, not provide access to it, and at the same time try to destroy free software with the money it makes. Look at the trouble it is having doing this with GPL software.
As I have said before, when the only two ways to release software are BSD and GPL, the GPL will no longer be necessary, but we are not there.
While that's true, I've come across an increasing number of Windows open source software that requires you to "agree" to the GPL at install time, just as though it were a more traditional EULA.
If nothing else, that's going to start confusing the issue.
Then you should raise a bug against the installer.
It's reasonable for the installer to bring the GPL to notice at install time but if it has a 'decline' button it should allow the install but notify the user that redistribution is not allowed.
Maybe you should suggest that there's a decline button that just pops up a message to that effect and a next/continue button (but not an accept).
The BSD license has a similar issue in that you can't actually decline the license in any real way because you don't h
>> [The GPL] was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without >> returning the favor.
> The GPL only covers redistribution, not use.
The original poster didn't mean "use" as in "using the gpl'd software as a user" but "using the code" in the sense of taking portions of code form a gpl program and "use" (or copy) it in derivative work.
The original poster didn't mean "use" as in "using the gpl'd software as a user" but "using the code" in the sense of taking portions of code form a gpl program and "use" (or copy) it in derivative work.
The GPL allows that too. It's only redistribution that requires the release of source code, modified or not, under the same terms.
English has a perfectly good word which means "distribute". That word is "distribute". Using the word "use" when you mean "distribute" is unnecessary and confusing. There are plenty of people on Slashdot who apparently believe that merely using GPLd code means that you have to make modifications available to the entire world. It would be nice to reduce that confusion by being precise in language.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of conflating the words "free" and "libre".)
This is a good debate to have... (Score:0, Flamebait)
I'm glad Theo de Raadt is challenging the moral superiority of the GPL in a public way and not giving these guys a free pass. He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer, and so people are more willing to listen to his point
Re:This is a good debate to have... (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL is a militant license. I totally agree. It's just as militant as the companies it was designed to fight against. It was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without returning the favor. Most companies would not do that without being forced. Look at Microsoft use BSD code in its operating system, not provide access to it, and at the same time try to destroy free software with the money it makes. Look at the trouble it is having doing this with GPL software.
As I have said before, when the only two ways to release software are BSD and GPL, the GPL will no longer be necessary, but we are not there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL only covers redistribution, not use.
Re: (Score:2)
If nothing else, that's going to start confusing the issue.
Re: (Score:1)
It's reasonable for the installer to bring the GPL to notice at install time but if it has a 'decline' button it should allow the install but notify the user that redistribution is not allowed.
Maybe you should suggest that there's a decline button that just pops up a message to that effect and a next/continue button (but not an accept).
The BSD license has a similar issue in that you can't actually decline the license in any real way because you don't h
Re: (Score:1)
>> [The GPL] was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without
>> returning the favor.
> The GPL only covers redistribution, not use.
The original poster didn't mean "use" as in "using the gpl'd software as a user" but "using the code" in the sense of taking portions of code form a gpl program and "use" (or copy) it in derivative work.
Re: (Score:1)
The GPL allows that too. It's only redistribution that requires the release of source code, modified or not, under the same terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
English has a perfectly good word which means "distribute". That word is "distribute". Using the word "use" when you mean "distribute" is unnecessary and confusing. There are plenty of people on Slashdot who apparently believe that merely using GPLd code means that you have to make modifications available to the entire world. It would be nice to reduce that confusion by being precise in language.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of conflating the words "free" and "libre".)
Re: (Score:2)