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
>> [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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL only covers redistribution, not use.
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:This is a good debate to have... (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".)