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 points without dismissing them out of hand (though this still happens).
At the very least, his challenges will teach people that the GPL isn't the only "free" license (don't laugh: for many, the GPL is all they know) and consequently educate people so that they might choose the right license for themselves.
Food for thought: Maybe it's in a lawyer's best interest to support the spread of complicated licenses like GPL? Not trying to say Eben or anyone else is being deliberately underhanded, but there is at least an unintentional conflict of interests.
here'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
That seems to be only true if one wants to relicense it under a non-free license, but if one is willing to license it under a license with a different sense of freedom, they obviously get their panties in a wad.
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".)
He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer
Does he? I don't know Theo, have never met him or communicated with him, but he does have certain "reputation". Same with Steve chair-throwing-"I'll-bury-them" Ballmer, but while Ballmer seems to be able to control his tantrums in public, Theo does not appear to be able to do so.
Many people still put great store by public demeanor, that they will prefer having a business relationship with someone who appears reasonable (even knowing that they will probably stab you in the back tomorrow) over someone who ca
I think your both wrong and are showing it. Everyone knows that outside VI, Emacs is the best operating system, flight simulator and license. And that is a completely neutral position.
BSD asks that derived works keep with the spirit of BSD (but you are free to walk in peace if you choose not to).
Seems to be in contradiction with this one:
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.
The GPL contributers tried to walk away....but they sure didn't get a free pass as Theo threw a hissy fit. I completely agree with the contention that if the authors/relicensers of the GPL code didn't comply wit
I believe I made explicit mention of the one restriction here:)
I completely agree with the contention that if the authors/relicensers of the GPL code didn't comply with the one restriction of the BSD license (attributing the original author), they should get called on it.
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 points without dismissing them out of hand (though this still happens).
At the very least, his challenges will teach people that the GPL isn't the only "free" license (don't laugh: for many, the GPL is all they know) and consequently educate people so that they might choose the right license for themselves.
Food for thought: Maybe it's in a lawyer's best interest to support the spread of complicated licenses like GPL? Not trying to say Eben or anyone else is being deliberately underhanded, but there is at least an unintentional conflict of interests.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That seems to be only true if one wants to relicense it under a non-free license, but if one is willing to license it under a license with a different sense of freedom, they obviously get their panties in a wad.
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer
Does he? I don't know Theo, have never met him or communicated with him, but he does have certain "reputation". Same with Steve chair-throwing-"I'll-bury-them" Ballmer, but while Ballmer seems to be able to control his tantrums in public, Theo does not appear to be able to do so.
Many people still put great store by public demeanor, that they will prefer having a business relationship with someone who appears reasonable (even knowing that they will probably stab you in the back tomorrow) over someone who ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be in contradiction with this one:
The GPL contributers tried to walk away....but they sure didn't get a free pass as Theo threw a hissy fit. I completely agree with the contention that if the authors/relicensers of the GPL code didn't comply wit
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)