Slashdot Mirror

Source: GNU Project - Misinterpreting Copyright. Technically, I think the copyright notice was part of the "this notice" that needed to be preserved.

I appreciate the ideas the article is trying to raise in the public consciousness and I am grateful the NYT is helping to put these issues on the political map. Apparently Boynton agrees with RMS that it's important to "spread understanding of the value of freedom" although Boynton wasn't writing with regard to free software. I hope that in the next articles we can get more into specifics about how these ideas were formed because I think people have an easier time grasping useful abstractions when they are grounded in real-world events.

Giving credit where credit is due is intellectually honest. This article and Mark Webbink's recently praised article both chime in on copyleft or ideas built on copyleft without giving any credit to the person or the organization that brought it to our attention--Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Webbink goes so far as to reinvent copyleft without calling it such, thus confirming how valuable the concept is and what the open source movement is missing out on by rejecting software freedom in favor of practical concerns centered on their chief audience--businesses. The NYT article tells us "Copy Left[sic]" (spelled with a space probably to pigeon-hole the concept on the left side of the left-right false political dichotomy) is a borrowed term:

([...] originally used by software programmers to signal that their product bore fewer than the usual amount of copyright restrictions).

But that would come closer to describing free software. Copyleft is a way to secure the freedoms of free software for a program and its derivative works.

I appreciate the ideas the article is trying to raise in the public consciousness and I am grateful the NYT is helping to put these issues on the political map. Apparently Boynton agrees with RMS that it's important to "spread understanding of the value of freedom" although Boynton wasn't writing with regard to free software. I hope that in the next articles we can get more into specifics about how these ideas were formed because I think people have an easier time grasping useful abstractions when they are grounded in real-world events.

Giving credit where credit is due is intellectually honest. This article and Mark Webbink's recently praised article both chime in on copyleft or ideas built on copyleft without giving any credit to the person or the organization that brought it to our attention--Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Webbink goes so far as to reinvent copyleft without calling it such, thus confirming how valuable the concept is and what the open source movement is missing out on by rejecting software freedom in favor of practical concerns centered on their chief audience--businesses. The NYT article tells us "Copy Left[sic]" (spelled with a space probably to pigeon-hole the concept on the left side of the left-right false political dichotomy) is a borrowed term:

([...] originally used by software programmers to signal that their product bore fewer than the usual amount of copyright restrictions).

But that would come closer to describing free software. Copyleft is a way to secure the freedoms of free software for a program and its derivative works.

I appreciate the ideas the article is trying to raise in the public consciousness and I am grateful the NYT is helping to put these issues on the political map. Apparently Boynton agrees with RMS that it's important to "spread understanding of the value of freedom" although Boynton wasn't writing with regard to free software. I hope that in the next articles we can get more into specifics about how these ideas were formed because I think people have an easier time grasping useful abstractions when they are grounded in real-world events.

Giving credit where credit is due is intellectually honest. This article and Mark Webbink's recently praised article both chime in on copyleft or ideas built on copyleft without giving any credit to the person or the organization that brought it to our attention--Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Webbink goes so far as to reinvent copyleft without calling it such, thus confirming how valuable the concept is and what the open source movement is missing out on by rejecting software freedom in favor of practical concerns centered on their chief audience--businesses. The NYT article tells us "Copy Left[sic]" (spelled with a space probably to pigeon-hole the concept on the left side of the left-right false political dichotomy) is a borrowed term:

([...] originally used by software programmers to signal that their product bore fewer than the usual amount of copyright restrictions).

But that would come closer to describing free software. Copyleft is a way to secure the freedoms of free software for a program and its derivative works.

I appreciate the ideas the article is trying to raise in the public consciousness and I am grateful the NYT is helping to put these issues on the political map. Apparently Boynton agrees with RMS that it's important to "spread understanding of the value of freedom" although Boynton wasn't writing with regard to free software. I hope that in the next articles we can get more into specifics about how these ideas were formed because I think people have an easier time grasping useful abstractions when they are grounded in real-world events.

Giving credit where credit is due is intellectually honest. This article and Mark Webbink's recently praised article both chime in on copyleft or ideas built on copyleft without giving any credit to the person or the organization that brought it to our attention--Richard Stallman and the FSF.

Webbink goes so far as to reinvent copyleft without calling it such, thus confirming how valuable the concept is and what the open source movement is missing out on by rejecting software freedom in favor of practical concerns centered on their chief audience--businesses. The NYT article tells us "Copy Left[sic]" (spelled with a space probably to pigeon-hole the concept on the left side of the left-right false political dichotomy) is a borrowed term:

([...] originally used by software programmers to signal that their product bore fewer than the usual amount of copyright restrictions).

But that would come closer to describing free software. Copyleft is a way to secure the freedoms of free software for a program and its derivative works.

After something of the same journey with licenses for my own open source work, I finally came to the conclusion that Richard Stallman had seen the inevitable truth clearly when he designed the GPL, namely that free software thrives best when there is a definite barrier between it and commercial software.

Then your journey is not yet over because the GNU General Public License (GPL) is not a "barrier between [GPL-covered software] and commercial software" nor is it "open source". The GNU GPL was written by the Free Software Foundation for the free software movement years before the open source movement began. It is a profound mistake to call the GPL anything to do with the "open source" movement. Also, the GPL can be a commercial software license. Perhaps you meant "proprietary" instead of "commercial"?

Our software now uses a dual license model in which it's either licensed for free under the GPL, or licensed for a fee under a standard commercial license.

You appear to be using the word "free" to refer to price and not freedom. This is a side effect of paying attention to the open source movement where software freedom is eschewed instead of learning about the ideas in the license you're using. You could be distributing software in such a manner that your terms conflict with the GPL (because it is not allowed to "impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" to quote the GPL section 6). There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits me from distributing covered software for a fee (this actually applies to all free software, not just the GPL). In fact, the FSF says I should make as much money as I can from distributing free software for a fee.

After something of the same journey with licenses for my own open source work, I finally came to the conclusion that Richard Stallman had seen the inevitable truth clearly when he designed the GPL, namely that free software thrives best when there is a definite barrier between it and commercial software.

Then your journey is not yet over because the GNU General Public License (GPL) is not a "barrier between [GPL-covered software] and commercial software" nor is it "open source". The GNU GPL was written by the Free Software Foundation for the free software movement years before the open source movement began. It is a profound mistake to call the GPL anything to do with the "open source" movement. Also, the GPL can be a commercial software license. Perhaps you meant "proprietary" instead of "commercial"?

Our software now uses a dual license model in which it's either licensed for free under the GPL, or licensed for a fee under a standard commercial license.

You appear to be using the word "free" to refer to price and not freedom. This is a side effect of paying attention to the open source movement where software freedom is eschewed instead of learning about the ideas in the license you're using. You could be distributing software in such a manner that your terms conflict with the GPL (because it is not allowed to "impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" to quote the GPL section 6). There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits me from distributing covered software for a fee (this actually applies to all free software, not just the GPL). In fact, the FSF says I should make as much money as I can from distributing free software for a fee.

I really should bookmark this:

The Free Software Foundation lists the BSDL as a
"GPL-Compatible, Free Software License". The BSDL grants all four of the software freedoms. To quote from the latter document:

In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.

And if you need for someone to draw you a picture, there is a very nice graphic showing the categories.

I really should bookmark this:

The Free Software Foundation lists the BSDL as a
"GPL-Compatible, Free Software License". The BSDL grants all four of the software freedoms. To quote from the latter document:

In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.

And if you need for someone to draw you a picture, there is a very nice graphic showing the categories.

I really should bookmark this:

The Free Software Foundation lists the BSDL as a
"GPL-Compatible, Free Software License". The BSDL grants all four of the software freedoms. To quote from the latter document:

In the GNU project, we use ``copyleft'' to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.

And if you need for someone to draw you a picture, there is a very nice graphic showing the categories.

Why not MP3 Sushi Server? It is an Aqua frontend to GnuMP3D. Works great on my G5. Just set its source directory to your iTunes Music Folder.

There's a traditional definition of a shyster: a lawyer who, when the law is against him, pounds on the facts; when the facts are against him, pounds on the law; and when both the facts and the law are against him, pounds on the table.

The point isn't that you are using any GNU programs actively (although I bet you are), but that Linux was built using the GNU tools such as the C compiler.

If it wasn't for the GNU C compiler you would not have a kernel (or anything else for that matter) to begin with.

As Linus said himself when he released Linux

"As I mentioned a month(?) ago, I'm working on a free version of a minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers. It has finally reached the stage where it's even usable (though may not be depending on what you want), and I am willing to put out the sources for wider distribution. It is just version 0.02 (+1 (very small) patch already), but I've successfully run bash/gcc/gnu-make/gnu-sed/compress etc under it."

I don't think Linus would deny the contribution of GNU to the success of Linux.

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

why GPL? wouldn't apache or BSD license be "more free"? Since the user doesn't have to contribute the changes back or provide the source to paying customers.

No, that would allow more restrictively licensed derivative works which would mean the freedoms of free software are not necessarily preserved for those who receive improved versions of the program. The freedoms of free software are for everyone to enjoy, not just those who receive a copy of the program from the copyright holder.

Distributing a program under the new BSD license or the Apache license is certainly free software, and it is a valued contribution to the community. But if the intention is to spread software freedom, not donate charitably to corporations, it's a good idea to make sure the software freedom stays with the program and its derivatives. And that's just what copylefted free software licenses are good at doing.

Contrary to what MBA's think, just because the source is available, it doesn't mean the average programmer can understand it or improve on it. the only thing the open licenses do is it allows your competitors to match exactly what you have.

For the free software movement (as opposed to the open source movement which started over a decade later with a different philosophy and a different message aimed at a different set of people), who possesses the skill to improve the program is not the key to understanding software freedom. Also, "open"ness is not a relevant criteria for determining what constitutes a free software license.

why GPL? wouldn't apache or BSD license be "more free"? Since the user doesn't have to contribute the changes back or provide the source to paying customers.

No, that would allow more restrictively licensed derivative works which would mean the freedoms of free software are not necessarily preserved for those who receive improved versions of the program. The freedoms of free software are for everyone to enjoy, not just those who receive a copy of the program from the copyright holder.

Distributing a program under the new BSD license or the Apache license is certainly free software, and it is a valued contribution to the community. But if the intention is to spread software freedom, not donate charitably to corporations, it's a good idea to make sure the software freedom stays with the program and its derivatives. And that's just what copylefted free software licenses are good at doing.

Contrary to what MBA's think, just because the source is available, it doesn't mean the average programmer can understand it or improve on it. the only thing the open licenses do is it allows your competitors to match exactly what you have.

For the free software movement (as opposed to the open source movement which started over a decade later with a different philosophy and a different message aimed at a different set of people), who possesses the skill to improve the program is not the key to understanding software freedom. Also, "open"ness is not a relevant criteria for determining what constitutes a free software license.

If you wrote a program and released it under the GPL, at any time you can turn around and say that you are going to release it under a more restrictive license.

Actually, copyright holders can do this without ever licensing their program under the GNU General Public License (GPL). This doesn't have anything to do with the GPL.

The key here, is that the released version will still be available, and anybody can improve upon it. However, that is certainly NOT unique to the GPL... Release a program under the BSD license and you have the same effect, but even less chance that it can get shut-down (with the GPL, if a patent shows-up, you can't distribute the program any longer, the BSD license has no such restriction).

You can't grant permission you don't have, regardless of the copyright license. But this GPL "restriction" you talk about is not a restriction at all and "get[ting] shut-down" (if you mean being compelled to stop distributing the program) is greater under the BSD licenses, not lesser. When IBM modifies a program to include patented ideas and then they distribute that program under the GNU GPL, they license "everyone who uses any code from the [program] to practice [the] patented technology" (according to the FSF's GPL quiz).

Under the BSD licenses (either the old or the new) there is no language covering patents at all. One does not simultaneously receive a license to practice the covered technology with the code from the patent-encumbered program. And under the BSD licenses embrace-and-extend is a constant threat to one's ability to improve the program based on someone else's published improvements. The GNU GPL doesn't have either of these significant problems.

Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

A: Yes.

Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

A: Yes.

Q: You have a GPL'ed program that I'd like to link with my code to build a proprietary program. Does the fact that I link with your program mean I have to GPL my program?

A: Yes.

In case you hadn't noticed MySQL AB is a business, not a charity. Just because they don't sell software doesn't mean they have no incentive to generate buzz.

The author of the GPL is well-known for his view that proprietary software (meaning software as an intellectual asset from which the designer can derive profit) is unacceptable.

[The GPL] "frees" the software that is proprietary, licensable, and a source of income from the companies that developed it.

Why should a software company invest to develop exciting new capabilities when their software could end up "freed" as part of Linux under the GPL?

Our economy has been hurt by offshore outsourcing of technology jobs.

The author of the GPL is well-known for his view that proprietary software (meaning software as an intellectual asset from which the designer can derive profit) is unacceptable.

[The GPL] "frees" the software that is proprietary, licensable, and a source of income from the companies that developed it.

Why should a software company invest to develop exciting new capabilities when their software could end up "freed" as part of Linux under the GPL?

Our economy has been hurt by offshore outsourcing of technology jobs.

I have a pair of Datahands, and they rock. They took about a weekend or so to get used to (the layout is QWERTY-ish, which helps), using gtypist (which I highly recommend as well).

Are they expensive? Yes. But if this is what you do with your life, they're worth the investment, IMO. These aren't your typical stock, mass-produced keyboards, either... they look hand-built, and they're pretty easy to take apart and completely clean out. The keys are optically-driven, so you can't gunk up switches or the like (although you can get the keys sticky, they're fairly easy to clean if you're not afraid to take things apart).

This is also great for the corporate desktop, because you can give the secretary just the few apps she's allowed and nothing more.

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

• Create a shell script in a noexec filesystem. For this example, we'll use /tmp/foo.sh
• Run: '/bin/sh /tmp/foo.sh'

• Create and compile a C program in a noexec filesystem. For example, /tmp/bar
• Run: '/lib/ld-linux.so.2 /tmp/bar'
• Watch the fun

Maybe you cannot be nominated more then 10 times in a row or so?

Or the fact that you can download it might disqualify it from being "vapor"-ware, at least to anyone who understands what the term means. Or are the usual anti-GNU shills more unaware than usual of common dictionary definitions of the terms they bandy about?

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

> Digital Rights Managment Year in Review

> ...proper spelling of the word "management"...

Funny, the first thing I noticed was how the title misspelled Restrictions.

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

I think I remember seeing somewhere that there's a hotkey to switch between apps, but I haven't used that in over a decade in any serious fashion on any OS, so I never took note.

Never design a UI for me then. I use [Alt]-[Tab] to switch between windows, [Alt]-[F1] through [Alt]-[F6] to switch between virtual desktops (or [Alt]-1 through [Alt]-4 when using MSVDM on my WinXP laptop), and [Ctrl]-A-<number> to switch between panes in my screen session. About the only thing I don't multiples are my vim sessions -- I no long split things vertically. (Although I used to, with splitvt .)

I live on hot keys to hop around my highly multiplexed desktop!

And this, perhaps, is why I'll never design a UI for others.... :-)

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

someone can give a copy to someone else, and then that person can request the source without paying.

FSF have the "Award for the Advancement of Free Software". The award ceremony has been at FOSDEM for the last 3 years, not sure where it was held before that.

Previous winners were: Lawrence Lessig, Guido van Rossum, Brian Paul, Miguel de Icaza, and Larry Wall.

FSF have the "Award for the Advancement of Free Software". The award ceremony has been at FOSDEM for the last 3 years, not sure where it was held before that.

Previous winners were: Lawrence Lessig, Guido van Rossum, Brian Paul, Miguel de Icaza, and Larry Wall.

FSF have the "Award for the Advancement of Free Software". The award ceremony has been at FOSDEM for the last 3 years, not sure where it was held before that.

Previous winners were: Lawrence Lessig, Guido van Rossum, Brian Paul, Miguel de Icaza, and Larry Wall.

Correct, and I'm not sure why you haven't gotten an informative mod yet. However, I reiterate that there are legal ways to write a closed-source module for a GPL'd program. Very strict and narrow ways, but it is possible.

For one thing, the GPL only requires you to make source code available to the people who have the binaries. In other words, if you haven't paid, you don't have any right to complain.

Even if they charge for the binary, someone can give a copy to someone else, and then that person can request the source without paying.

For one thing, the GPL only requires you to make source code available to the people who have the binaries. In other words, if you haven't paid, you don't have any right to complain.

Even if they charge for the binary, someone can give a copy to someone else, and then that person can request the source without paying.

What I don't get is whether or not the GPL allow you to take software, add a few function calls Call_From_Closed_Source_Library();, link against said closed library, and redistribute for $$ w/o distributing source for your closed library...?

No, you can't.

What I don't get is whether or not the GPL allow you to take software, add a few function calls Call_From_Closed_Source_Library();, link against said closed library, and redistribute for $$ w/o distributing source for your closed library...?

No, you can't.

What I don't get is whether or not the GPL allow you to take software, add a few function calls Call_From_Closed_Source_Library();, link against said closed library, and redistribute for $$ w/o distributing source for your closed library...?

No, you can't.

How can people say BSD is dying when it has a mascot like this?! Linux needs to get its act together if it's going to compete with the kind of hot chicks and gorgeous babes that BSD has to offer!

You just can't take Linux seriously when its fronted by losers like these. Would you buy software from them? I don't think so! You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her! I mean just look at this girl! Doesn't she excite you? I know this little hottie puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy little minx. I mean are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass?!

With sexy chicks like the lovely Ceren you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD if she told you to? Come on, you must admit she is better than an overweight penguin or a gay looking goat! Don't you wish you could get one of these? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close to such a divine beauty!

Join the campaign for more cute open source babes today!

An important distinction. BSD as a license in its original form is incompatible with the GPL and is recommended against usage. However, seeing the error in their ways, the BSD license has been modified and is now compatible with the GPL. Unfortunately, it is still weak and flacid, and I couldn't personally recommend using it in good conscience.

However, the problem is that GPL software is not truly "free." The GPL says, "I own this, and you can't use this except on MY terms."

Nonsense. What you have described is the purpose of any license, including the BSD.

By placing all of the reference works for HTML, and HTTP into the public domain (rather than under a GPL copyright) the web exploded and we have forums like Slashdot.

Please keep in mind that due to the wisdom of Slashdot's developers, you are enjoying the use of a product under the protection of the GPL.

Had Mr. Berners-Lee used the GPL, I have doubts as to whether we would have widespread adoption of the web.

There's no reason to assume that. Your doubts are unfounded.

= 9J =

An important distinction. BSD as a license in its original form is incompatible with the GPL and is recommended against usage. However, seeing the error in their ways, the BSD license has been modified and is now compatible with the GPL. Unfortunately, it is still weak and flacid, and I couldn't personally recommend using it in good conscience.

However, the problem is that GPL software is not truly "free." The GPL says, "I own this, and you can't use this except on MY terms."

Nonsense. What you have described is the purpose of any license, including the BSD.

By placing all of the reference works for HTML, and HTTP into the public domain (rather than under a GPL copyright) the web exploded and we have forums like Slashdot.

Please keep in mind that due to the wisdom of Slashdot's developers, you are enjoying the use of a product under the protection of the GPL.

Had Mr. Berners-Lee used the GPL, I have doubts as to whether we would have widespread adoption of the web.

There's no reason to assume that. Your doubts are unfounded.

= 9J =

Not much of a lesson, but I appreciate the effort. However, it does underscore your lack of understanding when it comes to Free Software.

Which includes BSD-licensed software by definition.

Somehow you've mistakenly equated GPL with proprietary patents. The entire philosophy behind the GPL is that patents are bad for the community. The GPL is a legal solution against proprietary patents/licenses within the context of laws that uphold proprietary patents and licenses.

However, the problem is that GPL software is not truly "free." The GPL says, "I own this, and you can't use this except on MY terms." I don't have the freedom to, for example, incorporate GPL software into an anonymous work for example. (Anonymous works are by definition, public domain.)

By placing all of the reference works for HTML, and HTTP into the public domain (rather than under a GPL copyright) the web exploded and we have forums like Slashdot. (Accessible through both proprietary and non-proprietary software.) Had Mr. Berners-Lee used the GPL, I have doubts as to whether we would have widespread adoption of the web.

Here's one for you:

"Richard Stallman is the prophet of the free software movement. He understood the dangers of software patents years ago. Now that this has become a crucial issue in the world, buy this book and read what he said."

- Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World-Wide Web.

= 9J =

I don't think free software is an issue of concern with GPL zealots. However, Free Software certainly is. But, it may be too subtle a point for BSD zealots to understand.

No. The BSD license considers that the community includes, for example, government organizations that have a mandate to release works into the public domain

The BSD license has an onerous stipulation and cannot be used as a license for works that are mandated by law to be placed in the public domain. This is why there is something called the public domain which is already considered in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, you might say that the public domain is the natural condition of any work in the United States unless the author makes effort to claim copyright, temporarily taking the work away for a limited time before being returned to the public domain.

BSD cannot lay claim to being more of a community builder than the GPL. If anything, BSD has been responsible for the rise of various proprietary Unix systems, completely splintering the market, allowing other inferior proprietary systems to enter and dominate. A fork in GPL code could never be truly splintered as improvements are guaranteed to be made available for all to profit from.

= 9J =