Slashdot Mirror
lpf Removed From OpenBSD
A nameless reader writes: "A few hours ago Theo DeRaadt removed the ipf source from the OpenBSD cvs tree in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf. Theo's remarks on the licensing change are visible in the commit log
here." Theo notes there that "software
which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they
people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including
modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching
machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia." That's keeping things all-purpose all right ;)
You are sadly mistaken
It doesn't attempt to infect code it touches. It's goal is to form a club of Free Software users and Developers. It's not a malicious goal, although it could be harmful to proprietary software developers.
Nobody is forcing you to join the club. If you find it repulsive, make sure you aren't developing software against GPL'd programs, or make sure they are Lgpl'd. It's very simple.
Of course, if you are just an GNU basher, that's not saying very much for you personally. I can udnerstand your sentiment, but I dont think you can extrapolate sentiment to a generalized condemnation of a software license. Think hard about other people's freedoms to do whatever they damn well want to, including join a software club that furthers their interests.
Companies that use GPL software know very well what they are getting into. IBM has a literal army of lawyers analyzing every legal move the company makes. They dont consider the GPL a threat to their "intellectual property" if IBM follows a few guidelines about its use. And if they do use GPL software wisely they stand to benefit greatly. They are already wagering 1 billion dollars on GNU/Linux, a GPL'd Operating system, with the calculation that it will pay off greatly.
Maybe you should reconsider the fallacies you've just propounded. They are obviously wrong and misleading.
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom. True freedom is being able to do *anything* with the source, commercial, redistribution, or whatever. If some commercial company picked up and supported my favorite GNU-based app, I'd be thrilled, even if they didn't release the source. If they did something that was that special a value-add, they should be recognized for it. And the open source community is free to clone their features in as free a form as they see fit.
I really wish more people saw the GPL as having the hampering effect that it does; let it truly be free; let the market forces and the open source cloners and innovators determine how the code evolves and branches. If someone uses it commercially, make them give credit, but don't make them give up their value-added code which they make their living with. If the changes are useful, someone will clone 'em! If they can't, then the company is really adding something special; don't restrict or disincent them from doing so by forcing them to give up the rights and privacy of their proprietary addition.
You're looking for netfilter for Linux 2.4. Two different projects. As far as I know, netfilter is GPL'd since it is included in the kernel. It probably has everything ipfilter does except a BSD license. If you're just looking to build a stateful firewall it should work fine.
not even that sometimes. What is amazing is the number of moderations that actually have the correct label.
I regularly notice the wrong label tacked on after I moderate something--and it's not always even in the right direction (although the direction may be right even if the label is wrong).
hawk, still pushing for a "funny" choice in meta-moderation
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
>THEY misunderstood the license
That's far from clear. WHat he "meant" is not dispositive (or even relevent). The meaning of the license is determined by the words used in the license, possibly modified by context (e.g., the number of nominally GPL licensed projects that have had one or more terms of the GPL revoked by the use of non-assimulable libraries and the invitation to compile and distribute).
Out of context, that license doesn't give permission to modify. Given the standard usage of the words he used and his target audienc, it might well give permission.
From the information currently available, a jury could decide either way.
The moral of the story is to have a lawyer involved when choosing your license. Many projects have come to grief by using words or actions that they didn't mean, or by assuming that the GPL did what they wanted.
hawk, esq., suffering through netscape as slashdot has another anti-lynx day
Of course, the difference is that Free Software hackers aren't generally interested in "borrowing" commercial source code. Nobody would whine about the GPL if the only code that was released under it was the Pascal version of "Hello World." To commercial developers GPLed software is like being lost at sea without any fresh water. There is plenty of useful code, but using it would be poisonous.
When push comes to shove its just sour grapes. They want to be able to use other people's code without sharing their own. The GPL won't let them do that.
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
And OpenBSD users are left without any firewalling solution. I'm using OpenBSD for a couple of firewalls, and without IPF, they're just useless boxes sucking up electricity. The sad thing is that I agree 100% with Theo. I just wish they'd taken a more pragmatic approach, and kept IPF in the tree until a suitable alternative could be written. I suppose, though, that removing it will increase the pressure to write such a replacement, which might otherwise have been a back-burner project. Oh well, I guess at least I still have my OpenBSD 2.8 CDs around...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Accordingly, the only way you might benefit from the BSD license over the GPL is if you were writing or using a proprietary program.
In this case, who are you to complain about freedom?
Exaclty what piece of GPL code they need for their commercial software.
Proof that that piece is not actually under the LGPL or any of the zillion LGPL-like licenses, or under another free license, or available commercially.
Proof that there is no equivalent piece of software available commercially.
Documentation showing that they attempted to contact the author and get them to relicense the code in a way that it could be used in their commercial product, and were turned down (note that any price quote does not count as being turned down!)
A convincing argument as to why they could not clean-room reverse engineer the code.
This rather simple set of requirements will restrict the submittors of these messages to the actual commercial software developers who are seeing their business destroyed by the GPL. Unfortunately the number of these is exactly ZERO.
Sorry, I was responding to one of the earlier postings, not yours.
Everybody knows and understands that if you don't get open-source software from the original author, someone might have changed it. But in reality, I've never heard of a backdoor in open source software. If you're worried about your reputation, you can ask that the name of the software be changed (Artistic) or that any change be noted, and marked with when it occurred (GPL).
Sometimes software needs to be modified. If Debian doesn't like where you put your files, we need to modify the code to change where you put the files. If there's a serious security hole, we need to fix it now, not when he gets back from vacation in 6 weeks. If you die, then we would like to continue making needed bug fixes and improvements.
"it's just software - not like the world will cease spinning"; this is one of personal pet peeves, people minimizing the importance of what other people care about. Very little will stop the world spinning; the complete extinction of the human race could happen and probably wouldn't touch it all. But OpenBSD needs the ability to modify the software, so a small group of people is probably going to spend many hours working on the code for a new firewall. Others are going to have to consider modifying their current firewalls or not updating them. To those people, this problem will take up many hours that could be spent doing more productive things. To me, it's just an example of why we care about licenses - because people will have to spend those hours.
Did he ever try to correct the "misunderstanding" by the OpenBSD project? They were violating his license, if you go with the idea that he just clarified and did not change the license. Why didn't he tell them before now?
/tell/ them before they became dependent on the code. It's seen as a change, because he's never let anyone know they were violating the spirit of his license, at least as he read it. IANAL, so I make no comment on the license itself, but it was poor of him to let the OpenBSD people use ipf, "violating" his license, and become dependent on it, before he "clarified" the license.
If someone misunderstood the license, he had a responsibility to
People aren't as pissed about the licensing as the way it was done.
-30-
It's "IP Filter", not "ipf". 'ipf' is a binary included in the package that is used to control the firewall, not the proper name of the package. It's like calling Linux "vmlin" because the Linux kernel is often named 'vmlinuz'.
I wonder whether anyone has grepped through the whole OpenBSD source tree for similar licence statements which might be open to 'reinterpretation'. Perhaps several contributors will be getting messages asking them to change the copying conditions attached to their code to remove any possible ambiguity.
This incident shows one reason why the FSF asks for copyright assignment on code submitted. With a legally binding agreement, you don't get nasty surprises later on. Of course it is a complete pain and some people refuse to do it (one of the reasons for the Emacs / XEmacs fork).
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
iptables is GPL, and the *BSD kernel is the BSD license, it probably would not work very well to try and use both licenses in the same kernel. Also, I don`t think it would be very easy to put iptables in the *BSD kernel, it was designed specifically for Linux, and ther BSD kernel has quite a different structure from the linux kernel. Putting it in the BSD kernel would probably require pretty much a complete rewrite, and if you`re going to do that, you might as well just design your own implementation.
Also, ipfilter is a little easier to set up than iptables, iptables uses shell scripts with a BUNCH of commands, while ipfilter uses a configuration file, I would expect that the OpenBSD people would want to stay with the config file approach, and they will probably try to make it compatible with ipfilter config files, or at least have an emulation layer like ipfilter has for ipchains and ipfwadm.
Say what you will about Theo, but there's no denying the fact that he's just as fanatical about BSD-licensed software as RMS is about GPL'ed software.
That's to be respected, even if you don't agree with them.
Theo notes there that "software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."
What Theo does not show what BSD should be. It shows the very nature of software. And BSD recognizes this very nature as a principle of use. Unfortunately many people attempt to overcome a natural fact by putting licences and restrictions. Much like the "bridge taxes" that were so common on the Middle Ages. Taxes were not only made on bridges built by the owner, but also on ancient roman bridges, bridges built by the community or third parties. Frequently taxes rose to absurd levels, which lead to clashes and even small wars. Something very similar can be seen in todays software.
Meanwhile there is a danger that Theo might have got too far. First because Australia surely will further see OpenBSD as a national menace. Second because Theo seems to live in California and there seems to exist a very weird rule there that considers even sugestions of using atomics as a terrorist threat... So time for Bush to switch out his NMD plans in exchenge for the new BSD (Berckley Software Defense) program... Considering the fact that BSD is red and has a small devil playing around with a fork, it will be absolutely easy for the conservative minds at Washington to readapt to the new threat:
"The Reds are coming!"
"The Red Evil menace"
"It's the devil in cheap... o damn... sheep clothes. Anyway it's in cheap clothes also..."
"software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."
Unless, of course, the method they choose to use for redistributing it is dd-ing the OpenBSD CD into a file, then making the file available for download.
-
Besides, aren't you telling us what freedom means?
(not, btw, to dispute that the GPL makes more restrictions than the BSD license, but it is inaccurate to put "socialist" as the diametrical opposite of "freedom")
You can copy and hack the source as much as you like
No, you can't. The distribution terms (aka: LICENSE) specifically state that you can not. As you said yourself, the distributed binaries must operate the same as the originals. That prevents patching. If, for instance, I patch qmail to write localtime rather than UTC in the headers, I can no longer distribute qmail, because its behavior has changed. If I patch qmail against a buffer overflow that gives remote intruders a shell, I can't distribute that package; it no longer operates the same as if my users had downloaded and compiled DJB's source.
Read the FAQ again. If you still don't get it, read it twice. You can not distribute modified binaries. If you think otherwise, prove it.
Sure, you COULD write your own code, but that just defeats the purpose of opensource
You are obviously confused. The GPL is not about "Open Source". The GPL is about Free Software. The point is to make sure that the software and any derivitave works are Free. Nowhere will you find any evidence that the GPL is about saving you (a developer) any work at all, if your software is not Free.
The point of the BSD license is open source and reuse. The point of the GPL is not.
OK, but lets take this in context... The post to which you replied claimed that packages such as BIND, postfix and sendmail are more free than Qmail (and djbdns), claiming that the license of the latter prevents redistribution. From a commercial distributors' perspective, this it totally true. When the original poster made his statement, this is the meaning that I got from it, dunno about you.
You're absolutely right. DJB specifially allows you to do whatever you want with your own personal copy of qmail or djbdns. However, the original poster is not "so wrong about djbdns". His point is totally valid. The GPL and BSD licenses specifically allow you *all* of the freedoms that the original author had. DJB's software takes away your freedom. With sendmail/bind/postfix, you are free to distribute modified binaries. With djbdns/qmail you are not.
See my reply at: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/05/30/12425 5&cid=387
You can't distribute modifies source, either. You can only distribute the original, unmodified source, binaries created from the original, unmodified source, and patches. That makes qmail/djbdns 100% not Free Software.
If you find a buffer overflow in the current version of qmail that can give a remote intruder a shell, I'll suck your dick!
4 25 5&cid=387
That was totally unnecessary. I was trying to make a point, not issue a challenge.
You can read my reply to the original poster here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/05/30/12
DJB's software is free in every sense of the word.
Except the sense that matters to Free Software developers and the Free Sofware Foundation. Every other sense, maybe. Free Software developers value the freedom to modify Free Software and share those modifications with others, without restrictions. qmail doesn't give you that freedom. You are restricted from forking or distributing modified source or binaries. That means that qmail and djbdns DO NOT meet the Free Software guidelines. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Ask Debian why they don't distribute DJB's software. Ask Red Hat why they don't. DJB's software ISN'T FREE.
The GPL is certainly less restrictive than the distribution terms for qmail/djbdns. The GPL mandates only that you not deprive others of the freedoms that you have. DJB doesn't give you those freedoms to begin with.
Are you out of your mind? The burden of compliance with the license rests upon the licensee not the author.
How could you expect the author of IPF to track all users of his software and ensure that they do not supply it in modified form?
He did precisely that mind you. Upon realizing that some group was distributing modified code, he added a clarification that this was against the license.
It was then that all hell broke loose, because some people want to have their cake and eat it too.
People shouldn't be pissed with the author of IPF, but with themselves, for failing to read the license in the first place.
It was *never* under the BSD license.
/*
Read carefully:
* Copyright (C) 1993-2000 by Darren Reed.
*
* The author accepts no responsibility for the use of this software and
* provides it on an ``as is'' basis without express or implied warranty.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given
* to the original author and the contributors.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
*
* I hate legaleese, don't you ?
*/
Contrast that with the BSD license and observe that
Reed's license does not allow redistribution in modified form:
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
It's simple really, the license did not grant you the right to distribute modified versions of the software. Take a step back: It's his software, and it's copyrighted by him. He lets you do two things, provided that his notice is preserved and due credit is given (which is fair enough):
1) use it in source and binary forms
2) redistribute it in source and binary forms
One could argue that using the software includes doing the necessary modifications for it to run on your system and whatnot, although I doubt if this would stand in court, however I belive that Darren wouldn't mind you fiddling with his source.
You have no right whatsoever though, to redistribute modified versions of his software in any form, simply because he hasn't explicitly granted you that right. To do this, you would need his permission from day 0, and all he did was clarify the license, not change it.
I have faith that with DeRaadt's legendary tact and reserved diplomatic manner things will be smoothed out and we will all be happily filtering with current very soon.
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
1) I am not familiar with this particular license.
2) I don't use this particular product.
It is kind of OpenBSD to respect the wishes of the author.
If a large number of people did not understand the license in the same way that the author claims that it is intended to have been understood, then there is at least a fair probability that a court would agree with the majority's reading of the terms.
If the author felt it necessary to issue a new license in order to cause the terms to be understood in the way that he intends, then there is a large chance that the older version of the license did not, in fact, say what he intended it to say.
These are tricky points, and are why it is usually better to use an established license that says what you want it to say.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
True. But then that is one of the market forces.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A person claiming to be a lawyer earlier said that this was ambivalent. That a jury could decide either way.
That's what I get out of it too. I can't figure out how I should have read it, if it hadn't been "clarified" for me before I encountered it. I'd probably have figured it was up for modifications.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There was clearly a change. Whether the change changed the meaning may not be totally clear. But the checksums wouldn't match, so there is clearly a change.
With that out of the way, It doesn't matter unless YOU decide to develop a firewall with ipf as a base! OpenBSD has decided to go with some other (yet unknown, possibly yet unwritten) firewall. Courts aren't going to get involved. The author's expressed wishes will be obeyed. Etc.
Pity, but better a vile disagreement, than an amicable courtroom encounter.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Go back and read the original post. I don't know about the license, but it's clear you weren't paying attention to the poster. You go to the trouble of quoting "copy and hack the SOURCE as much as you like", then come back saying "Read the license! you can't distribute modified binaries!" The original poster seemed to be saying that "screw modified binaries, we can distribute modified source".
I don't know whether or not that's true, but your point is invalid either way.
Huh? He just now realized that OpenBSD was distributing a modified version of his software? He had no clue they had been doing it for years? Are *you* out of your mind?
And that's beside the point. He was under no obligation to tell Theo that he was violating the license. Sure, it may be an assholish thing to do--what are you going to do, sue him? The fact of the matter is, it's Theo (and company)'s fault for assuming that the license was BSD style and not a proprietary license.
Hi, Bill! I just wanted to say I really LOVE your company. And that Bob thing that Melinda did, it's SO great!
Anyway, I was thinking, since you're obviously so into freedom, can I put some of your Word code into this StarOffice project I'm working on?
Or the fact that the FSF actively solicits developers to release their code under the GPL. Days after I first publicly announced a software package of mine, I was approached by number two at the FSF, urging me to change my license from the BSD to the GPL. I wonder what they do, monitor freshmeat or something? Do these guys get a commission for every convert?
In fact, the only people who have ever written to me expressing their disapproval over the licensing of my software have all had "gnu.org" as part of the email address. Now why is that?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If the situation were the inconvenience of one man versus the lives of his entire community, then I will most certainly side with the community. But if comes down to the life of one man versus the inconvenience of the community, well then, screw the community!
But the situation in the Free Software Movement(tm) is at neither of these extremes. It comes down to the minor inconvenience of the community getting their noses out of joint, and the major inconvenience of the individual developer having to reinvent the wheel.
But the code belongs to the author, and it is up to the author to decide how it will be distributed. If he decides that the "common good" of his particular community is paramount, then the GPL may be his best choice. But it has nothing to do with freedom. Freedom is for everyone, even for those you don't like.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Information doesn't suffer from inherent scarcity the way material goods do, so the common good pretty much consists of freedom to fully use it.
But the GPL is not about the freedom to fully use the software. There is no scarcity of information, remember? If Microsoft comes along and "steals" Linux, guess what? Your copy of Linux is still there! Untouched! There is nothing Microsoft can do to an illegal copy of Linux that could impact you or your community in any way (other than insult your fragile sensibilities). Apple "stole" FreeBSD and created Mac OS X out of it. Guess what? FreeBSD is still there! Unchanged! No one using FreeBSD at the time had their "freedom" diminished in any way.
Copyleft is irrelevant if information is not scarce. If my downloading of MP3s does not harm the musician, then why should my distribution of a GPL binary without source harm the developer?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
A proprietary Microsoft variant of GNU/Linux would interfere with their customers' ability to interoperate with us...
...their only alternative to being at Microsoft's mercy would be the painful and expensive process of completely abandoning the system.
Interoperability has nothing to do with software licensing. Microsoft could make a variant of LiGnuX, release it under the GPL, and still have it be incompatible with other linuces and unices. Or to put it another way, MS Word is not incompatible with Abiword because it is released under a EULA, but because it uses a different file format. It may be easier to reverse engineer the format if the source code were available, but the format differences would still be there. And I'll bet you last year's AbiSource profits that AbiSource would still be tracking every release of a GPLd MSWord to see what new incompatibilities were unleashed upon the world.
How is the process of completely abandoning a Windows system any less painful and expensive then abandoning a Linux, GNU or BSD system?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It doesn't attempt to infect code it touches. It's goal is to form a club of Free Software users and Developers.
Precisely! GPLd software is not written for everyone, only a certain select few. They'll let you use it, but if you want to touch, you'll find that their definition of "freedom" only applies to club members.
The FSF and many GPL supporters are communitarians. They believe that the community is more important than the individual. They don't want individuals to own software, they want the community (or the FSF) to own the software, which is why it's still copyrighted and owned. They don't like the BSD and MIT licenses because users from outside the community are not required to play by community rules.
Just as the politicians in the material word holds the wants of the community in higher regard than the freedom of the individual, the Free Software Movement(tm) holds the the community's want to control the software distribution in higher regard than the freedom of the individual developer.
RMS has long looked for a less misunderstood term than "Free Software". How about "Community Software". It fits their meaning and it's easy to understand. And as a benefit, it de-emphasizes "freedom", which in the FSF rhetoric, has always played second fiddle to the "common good".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
There are two concepts of freedom. You are thinking of freedom only in its negative sense (freedom from interference) whereas there is also positive freedom (freedom to acheive your goals).
All societies have rules which restrict behaviour. These rules may benefit your freedom in the positive sense. The simplest example I can think of is the law that you must drive on the left hand side of the road. This, and other traffic regulations, keep traffic flowing as smoothly as possible and greatly assist you in your goal of getting from A to B. This is why you never hear people complaining "But I want to be able to do what I want with my car!"
Of course, positive freedom doesn't make any sense without some societal context. I think when people criticise the GPL they miss the social dimension of the free software movement. RMS's idea was to create a community of people who would cooperate with each other. The GPL is just a statement of the rules you must obey in order to be part of that community. And of course, you always have a choice about whether you want to take part or not, unlike the society you were born into.
It was never GPL. The license hasn't been changed.
The license permitted 'use for any purpose in source or binary form'. It did not permit modification. This was simply a misunderstanding.
In light of recent clarifications by the author on this, people are getting antsy because they just assumed they could do whatever they felt like with his code.
Though.. I suppose one could argue that 'using the source for any purpose' would include making new code with it.
He has spent countless hours working on code, and now everyone is acting all pissed at him because THEY misunderstood the license. Knowing how the /. crowd tends to work, I wouldn't be surprised if he's getting TONS of harassing flames from uninformed idiots.
Folks, it is not for us to tell the author of ANY code what he can or cannot do with it.
Bwa ha ha ha. With the GPL you can view the code, use the code any way you want, and change it in any way you want, and redistribute it freely.
And that's "more demanding" than, say, Microsoft's license, where you can't view the code, can't use the source code, can't even use the binaries in some ways(!), can't change the code, and can't redistribute it freely?
Or if you are part of the "shared source" club, maybe you can view the code. But you still can't change it, use it, or redistribute it.
Or maybe you sit down and negotiate a source code license from some software company with a proprietary license. (That might take a month or two.) Now you can view it and use it and maybe change it, in some limited and restricted ways. You will have to pay, of course... probably a lot.
"But", you cry, "Now I have the freedom to keep my changes secret!" Well guess what, you can do exactly the same thing with GPL'ed code: Go negotiate a secondary, non-GPL source code license with the developer! Exactly like you would with a closed-source license!
"But", you whine, "The developers of the GPL'ed code don't want to do that, or they want a lot of money for an alternate license!"
Well boo hoo! If you don't like the terms, write it yourself! Or go talk to Microsoft and see what cheap, easy, friendly terms they give you for source code access. Don't be ridiculous. "More demanding than any closed source license". Yeah right!
>I'm all for the creators of software controling >what happens with it but the GPL rubs me the >wrong way when it seeks to control other works >that the original author did not create.
That is a self-contradictory statement. Creators of software who release it under the GPL are simply exerting some minimal control over what happens to it, which you say you have no problem with. Now, since the GPL does not seek to control _independent_ works that have nothing to do with the GPL'ed code, when you say that "the GPL rubs you the wrong way" you must not like that it has some minimal control over changes to the original work by the author. The only control is that the modified source must continue to be available. But that's the WHOLE POINT of the GPL, and that's why the authors released it that way... which you say you don't have a problem with. So which is it?
To summarize: Everyone who complains about the GPL either:
1. Does not understand it, or,
2. Wants to leech from the Free Software community by taking and not giving.
I have yet to see a counterexample.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Because ipf is available for different platforms (*BSD, Solaris, ...). You can
administer a whole bunch of machines with different OSs with the same set of firewall rules.
You can't do that with ipfw.
Correct, the GPL does impose a restriction. That restriction is that you may not impose that any restrictions upon code based on that code.
What the GPL does not do is impose *any* restrictions on the users, only on someone wanting to make a derivative work. As that is something that is not allowed in the case of a regular copyrighted, program, this isn't much of a restriction. Indeed, the GPL offers the right to do many things you would otherwise be unable to do.
This is why most GPL supporters don't see the GPL as being restrictive, they see it as granting many freedoms. Perhaps other licenses (BSDL) offer more rights, but there's no such things as 'the most' rights... I could write a license where you also gain the right to marry my sisten, this doesn't suddenly mean that the BSDL is restrictive because it doesn't likewise offer this right.
So, the GPL places restrictions on the behavious of a licensee, but because licensing is optional, not required for users, and grants many rights, I think it's pretty unfair to call it restrictive in any way.
The only demand the GPL places on a developer is that they don't restrict the use of their source code/application any further than you have restricted the use of yours.
It's completely voluntary. If you don't use GPLed code, you don't need to GPL your application.
If the best libraries out are under GPL, that's an incentive to use them, but nothing prevents your writing your own libraries. If *all* the libraries out are GPLed, you can still write your own, just like the original authors did.
The GPL can never make it harder to write proprietary software than it already is, well, than it is to do without ripping off someone else's code. But if you're a good programmer you shouldn't need to do that.
If having a closed source application is so important to you, write it yourself.
My company uses a lot of free software in the things we do, mainly modifying GNU tools to handle slight kernel extensions, etc.
We have used BSDL code in the past and our lawyers told us to not release the source code for our modifications. We might be held liable for it in some way, or we might discover some tiny use for it later that we couldn't properly exploit if it was public.
But when we started using GPL they didn't mind. They realized that following the GPL is a cost of business and that it's well worth it for us to not have to rewrite all that software ourselves.
If there's no requirement for our company to release source, the tiny possibility of future lawsuits keep us from going there (because there's no benefit to offset that risk). As soon as there's the smallest requirement for us to release source, we do. Lawyers require a cost/benefit analysis and won't do *anything* without something on the benefit side.
So in my experience, the GPL is a good thing. It got a lot more source released that the BSDL would have.
The BSDL is good for things you want people to incorporate into everything, like TCP/IP, or JPEG support, but for most other things, the GPL gets my vote.
(Troll or serious? Er, stuff it, I'm biting)
That final paragraph rather jumped out.
I'm _not_ an open source zealot. I'm happy that closed source can have its place and people can have their reasons for choosing it.
But, I've long thought that any open source projects I released would be, unquestionably, BSD licensed.
I know and understand why people like the GPL. I can see the point, I merely disagree with it.
Write and release code under BSD and you have a library of code that your fellow coders can, basically, do what they want with. Don't have to worry about the law or the politics of it, they can just grab the source and work with it. This is a fantastic attitidue which I applaud from the rooftops.
Yes, if the someone wants to they can take this code and release a subsequent version under a restricted license. Know what? I don't care. The original is there and free for everyone to use. Can't put that genie back in that bottle.
There was a lovely comment I saw years ago. I forget the author... To paraphrase, "A good coder writes good code. A great coder borrows and adapts good code." BSD makes this truly, universally possible and I applaud it.
When and where I release code under an open license, I have every intention of placing every last chunk under a BSD-style license with a real, evangelistic zeal.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
comp29.tgz is an optional part of the OpenBSD OS, so you don't have to have it to run OpenBSD. And none of the code generated by GCC would be covered by the GPL either.
... you should know better Brett.
IPF however, was in the kernel, and now (retroactively) has a far more restrictive license than GCC does.
So stop spreading FUD
next week.
(But let me clarify....I am not a monger, i am not uber - i'm just the only guy that knows enough unix here to be the one who's job it is to set things up.
I'm as geek as you get here, so please don't shoot me down if i use incorrect terminology or say something stupid... because i know a lot of people like me who are sysadmins not by choice.. and have not done it for years...
i am the result of people like you who say that using free software is better - so *please* bear with me as i try to understand this so i don't fuck it up and have everyone say "Damnit, someone install Windows on it and just pirate some software")
2.9's biggest feature is its improved filesystem speed... which, i guess, isn't that big of a deal if i'm only setting up a firewall..
except that i was also going to set it up as a backup mail server and VPN server as well.
and now, if i go to install under 2.9, i'm fucked because all my previous ipf settings files will be worthless if i don't do a 2.8 install..
So - wtf do i do? Do i stick with 2.8 and not worry about it - or do i go with 2.9?
And - as a point of clarification - is ipf taken out of 2.9? I mean, if the CD's are available... Friday.. then how the hell could they not have ipf on them? This all went to shit - not that long ago.. and apparently after the CD's were burned. SO - will the 2.9 CD ship with it or not.. cause i can't sodding tell.
damnit.. am i going to have to install a Mac with IPNetRouter or some Windowz box with Norton Firewall? (ha ha only serious)
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
However, if someone has already written a fair chunk of what you want to do under the GPL, and you want to use that code, as it is the best code for the job, you MUST release your program under the GPL, as well. Sure, you COULD write your own code, but that just defeats the purpose of opensource and code sharing in the first place.
Ok, you're right. Tough luck. If Microsoft had already written the same code, you would still have to rewrite it. By this definition, closed source is viral. Obviously that's absurd.
The BSD license isn't "better" or "worse" then the GPL. They each have different, specific advantages. Some authors prefer one, other prefer the other, still others choose the license based on the project. Even closed source has it's advantages, though I personally feel that those advantages are outweighed by it's disadvantages for most types of programs. Regardless, use the license that you like & don't illegally use code that you don't have the rights to. It ain't that tough.
You almost have it! In many cases, the GPL does "infect any program written on top of it". Of course you still must specifically choose to build your code on top of the GPL'd code, so calling it viral is flawed. I could almost buy calling it "addictive", though. After all, unlike a virus, an addict CHOSE his course of action. But of course, for the FUD monger, addictive doesn't sound as bad, so it clearly won't work for your purposes.
Nobody that is just the price for using GPL software. Anything with a price cannot be considered free.
Wrong. That is the price of redistributing an application based existing code that has been released under the GPL. That's a pretty specific set of circumstances. You must a) develop code, b) redistribute said code, and c) said code must be based on code that was GPL'd. Unless all three conditions are met, no violation has occurred. Since you must specifically choose to use the GPL'd code, calling it "viral" is FUD at it's worst & most obvious.
I don't consider the GPL freedom, and it saddens me that so many people are misled by it. As mentioned on some previous topics, it really is a virus, trying to infect code it touches with its own license, and
I think that hurts the software community.
what a horrid slur. The GPL is deliberately applied to any software licensed under it by the authors. That's their choice. No infection occurs. If you don't want that for your software, choose a different license!
Seems that someone figured out that OpenBSD is making the play for the lucrative baby mulching business and they're using ipf as a roadblock to these ends...
from Darren Reed:
IPFilter no longer available...
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2001/05 /30/0004.html
Oh, and Reed's message above is some kind of Theo de Raadt-oriented flamebait :-)
-- Colin
So Darren Reed gets his wish, and the OpenBSD people will no longer be modifying his code without his permission.
The OpenBSD people get their wish, and all the code they distribute is completely free of any restrictions on use, modification, etc.
Two lessons to be drawn from this mess:
1) Carefully read the licenses on code you intend to use before you actually use it, and feel free to get any questions you have cleared up. The worst that can happen (in theory...) is that the lawyers give you an answer you don't like, and you can't convince the developer to agree to otherwise. Which leads to the second lesson:
2) Don't use code you can't/won't adhere to the licensing restrictions for. Free/OSS licenses are rooted in copyright law, using it in an unorthodox fashion to allow instead of restrict freedom, but still relying on its existence for their own. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL code. If you can't use Windows without being able to see the source and fix patches on your own, and you don't have a whack of cash for the right/the stomach to sign the NDA, don't use Windows code.
If the developer's being a bit of a jerk about an ambiguous part of his/her license, screw 'em, switch to a freer/Freer alternative. There's tons of GPL'd and BSD'd code out there for the studying and using; why waste your time trying to pry a privilege from someone who doesn't want to give you that privilege?
I know, I know - easier said than done, and I'm sure you have several objections and points to bring up. Point being, it could have been much, much nastier. As it is, Reed's code won't benefit from the advantages of open source/free software as quickly as the BSD/GPL alternatives will, but if that's the way he wants it, fine by him. That's his right, just as it's Theo's right to tell him to shove off and take his code with him.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
We all play in Theo's yard cause he has the best fence and the coolest toys and we all get to take the fence and the toys home. Plus we like throwing penguin stuffies to Farmer.
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom...I really wish more people saw the GPL as having the hampering effect that it does; let it truly be free; let the market forces and the open source cloners and innovators determine how the code evolves and branches.
:)
Well put. GPL = the socialist, we'll tell you what freedom means license. BSD = the libertarian, truly free license. All the BSD folks want is "credit where credit is due" and "don't sue us"
That's 42,808 verified users. While re-working this site I had to tossed a couple of thousand users that I could not verify ie. bogus or dead email address. IF that 42,808 users represent only 1% of the FreeBSD users ...
I'm a Debian user. A verified Debian user. Now, IF this 1 user represents only 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the Debian users, then gee, we have trillions of users! Quite a logic you've used there, sir. I'm amazed.
--
I have no sig at all.
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
In the "new" (or "clarified" whatever) license, the phrase "Yes, that means you need permission from the authors..." was tacked on. I don't see that as a clarification at all. Neither providing notice and giving due credit, imply that you have to actually get explicit consent from the authors. It's not a clarification, it's some extra limitations added on for the heck of it. Of course I don't know the whole history, etc., and am just deducing this from the visual diff of the two licenses, but still it seems rather specious.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
*sigh*
How can a license "try" to "infect" things? Does it have a mind of its own?
and "Forced infectious freedom?" who is forcing you to release your code under the GPL exactly?
I agree with you about the market forces choosing, but thats exactly what IS happening NOW! and they seem to favour the GPL over *BSD style licences so far judging by the rate of code released under each.
Now that I have disagreed with most of what you said, I must add that I personally prefer BSD style licenses for my own code but I am respectful of the choice of others (and yes it was a choice, dont give me any more of that "viral" crap) to use the GNU GPL, often because of their distrust of many large corporations who might "steal" their code otherwise.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
This seems like a nice opportunity to add iptables to *BSD. Iptables is the linux version of ipf. Some people claim that iptables is superior (or at least more flexible and easier to understand) to ipf ....
The main site for iptables is: http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org but that site has been down for some time now, use http://www.samba.org/netfilter/ instead.
RFC1925
Correct. If you agree to another licence by distributing your code as part of a project with the other licence, your work is in that distribution under the other licence.
However, your work in patch form or whatever, could also be distributed seperatly at your discression under any old license you choose.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
I think you missed a point...
The license (as "clarified") bans modified versions.
The version used with OpenBSD is modified.
So they had to take it down.
Now you have two choices:
Download and install a copy of the modified version. This violates the license.
Download and install a copy of the UNmodified version. This means you don't have the OpenBSD modifications.
Now since the whole POINT of OpenBSD is that it has been heavily vetted for security bugs, do you REALLY want to install the UNmodified version? Of the FIREWALL code?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Free and Net are different as the do not ship with ipf in the kernel and base install. IPF exists in packages on those two platforms. IPFW is probably the heir apparent. Although openipf.org has been registered, it appears all versions of IPF are affected by the license "clarification", so not direct parallel to OpenSSH can be drawn
ostiguy
Nice troll. Read www.openbsd.org/goals , specifically the 2nd bullet point, which lays out the project's goals on software freedom. Because OpenBSD seeks to keep firewalling in the default system, they have to migrate away from IPF.
ostiguy
No, AFAIK, ipf is out of current, but stioll in 2.9. (I think I read this on Bugtraq, but since I cleaned up my mailbox just about 30 minutes back, I can't do a local grep.). Sorry about that.
Devdas Bhagat
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Just because it not included in the distibution does not mean you cant use it. You can still download the package from http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~avalon/ and compile it yourself.
Folks, it is not for us to tell the author of ANY code what he can or cannot do with it
Yes, but it is alleged that DR has repeatedly referred to IPF as Open Source, which is plainly false. Combined with the fact that `you must credit the authors when distributing the work does not logically `clarify' to `you may not distribute modified versions of this work without my permissions, two scenarios are possible:
1. The license was changed recently
2. The license was always the way it was and the author was not telling the truth about what the license meant and not bothering to correct false assumptions.
The details escape me now, however. Anybody remember?
Are you guys affiliated with http://www.gnu.org/software/shotyourfavoriteoriell yanimal/safaree.html
Someone you trust is one of us.
We are desperately in need of developers to write replacement code for lpf over here at http://sourceforge.net/projects/babymunchingmachin e/home.html
Someone you trust is one of us.
Incorrect.
You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use the product. If you have the source, you don't have to agree to the GPL in order to view it or modify it. Thus, you can modify or use any GPL-ed product to your heart's content. Go nuts.
However, you cannot distribute your modifications unless you agree to the GPL.
This is a subtle but important distinction that many people miss. You may still have a problem with the GPL, but it is incorrect to state that it prevents any use by dissenters.
How many times do we have to say it? If you don't want your code under the GPL, don't include code already under GPL. Write from scratch, use code under BSD-like or some other license that lets you do what you want to do. That's all you have to do. SIMPLE, eh? The AUTHOR of the code gets to choose the license. This "Forced infectious" stuff is malicious nonsense - only fools fall for this argument. No one forces anyone to include GPL'd code in their own code.
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Did anyone else see "IPF" and immediately think "I pee freely"?
This is not a troll, just an honest question.
-----
Some open source programmers don't mind if their code is used in closed-source products. Some do. I don't think the FSF would like it one bit if some company extended a GNU program without releasing the source, even if it was a significant value-add.
Personally, I prefer to use the LGPL. Most of my work is in libraries, and I want anyone to be able to use them in any project. However, I wouldn't want anyone to pull a Microsoft-style embrace-and-extend on me. The LGPL prevents that. And yes, I have considered switching to a BSD-like license from time to time, but that doesn't mean that I think everyone should.
If you don't like the licensing terms placed on a piece of code, don't use it. Write your own.
------
The idiots on =deadly.org didn't help the situation. A bunch of whiny jerks got all obnoxious. Additionally, the mail bombing of personal attacks from slashdot/deadly was EXTREMELY counter productive.
This is a delicate situation where OpenBSD conceivably broke copyright law and sold CDs as a result.
Diplomacy was needed here, and all this reporting was counter productive. I love OpenBSD, but this was unfortunately Theo's doing. The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. While BSD and GPL licenses don't require notifying the author, common decency does. Unfortunately, an unspoken goal of OpenBSD is to have better software by keeping their changes kinda quiet. You could build a product off OpenBSD, but migrating OpenBSD's changes into FreeBSD is problematic. Given how much gets taken from FreeBSD, this is kinda obnoxious. Nobody really calls OpenBSD on this because it is a small userbase. We only run OpenBSD because the servers we run need very few applications, and the OS+Ports gives us that quickly without cruft. However, the political issues in OpenBSD are a little sad.
Net/Free will stay away from this pissing match with a 10-ft pole. They may hope for a Free (BSDL) filtering package to show up, but they won't get involved in Theo and Darren's pissing match. If OpenBSD gets one working (and likely will in the next 6 mo., OpenBSD's coders are as brilliant and competant as Theo is obnoxious...) FreeBSD and NetBSD may migrate to OpenIPF. However, until they have something done, there is no reason for them to back Theo.
Theo, good luck and happy coding. I wish you would pick up some diplomatic finesse, it would make your life easier. Either way, love the system and look forward to my OpenBSD 2.9 CD.
> I pee on my software all the time. It seems to behave just like the toilet anyway.
;-)
So, I see that we have something in common--we've both installed the newest Win2k Service Pack.
C'mon, guys; it had to be said...
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
No I doubt FreeBSD and NetBSD will follow suit... it appears they are tring to work with Reed... even if they do follow suit they will wait for a safe (and free) ip filter they can take/develop before droping support for it.
IMHO Net/Free/Open should all band together and code up a ip filter that is acceptable and useable by all projects... there is probably to much poltical BS to get into the way of that though...
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Shouldn't reply to my own posts, yadda yadda, but it wasn't a GPL, attempt made to 'clarify' license, blah I got too excited by the low post number
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
"in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf."
Get this through your heads: There was no licensing change. None. The terms of the license have not changed at all.
IPFilter was never under a BSD-style license. It never mentioned the right to modify. The way copyright works is that any right not explicitly granted is implicitly reserved. Thus since the right to modify is not explicitly granted, it is implicitly reserved (ie, denied).
Lots of people read the license and either saw the word "modify" where it didn't exist, or assumed that the right to "use" includes the right to "modify", which it in a legal sense it does not.
Because of this state of confusion and false assumption, Mr. Reed clarified his license by adding the statement, "Yes, this means that derivative or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent. "
The addition of this statement to the license in no way changed the terms of the license itself. Any previous version of the code bearing the unclarified license still implicitly denies granting the right to modify. Now any version of the code bearing the clarified license merely explicitly denies the right to modify. No real change there.
What so worrisome about the license now that people understand it is that there is no possibility of legally fixing the code in the case of Mr. Reed's refusal or inability to do so himself. Nor is there any possibility of creating a legal fork of the code since there is no point from which to legally fork it.
My interpretation is that he's gotten himself in a behind-the-scenes pissing contest with Theo, who as we all know is not the most reasonable man in the world himself. That said, though I'm inclined to believe that Darren is legally correct, I think he's way off base and will wind up seeing his code fade into irrelevance. I gotta take Theo's side on this one; Darren is being a very bad boy by flouting community standards like this.
/Brian
Well, wait just a second. Couldn't the GPL'd code be considered an attractive nuisance? Here's this code that does something you want to do. It's just sitting there. You can't help yourself. You have to go over and embrace it.
Next thing you know, you're infected by the GPL virus.
Seems to me, that's just how STDs work. You see a little hottie sitting on the corner, and you can't be bothered to slip on a condom (cleanroom software practices), and next thing you know, you're getting a shot for the clap or worse.
Not A Sig
GPL = the socialist, we'll tell you what freedom means license. BSD = the libertarian
Nice move. Anyone who dosnt know what socialism means will become alarmed when they here that. Socialism != Fascism. If you mean Fascism: Say it. Do not mis-apply Socialism when you dont know what the fuck you are talking about.
Socialism does not require oppression. Socialism can enable libertarian-style freedom. Capialism is more like Fascism than Socialism. Capitalism enables the few (those with the means of production) to dictate to those without. Communism, or shared ownership of the property, will apply the property based on the desires of the people - which employ democratic freedom to make its decisions.
Do not be confused by McCarthyism. Capitalism != Freedom && Communism != Fascism.
I must give you credit though - you sure know how to use those loaded/confused terms to get an ignorant crowd on your side...
I dont agree:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms
the 'use of source' permits me to modify. There is no purpose for source except to modify, outside of compiling. But 'redistribution in..binary forms' is already permitted. If you were permitted to use the source - but only compile - why not simply make the binaries available, the source is useless without the right to modify (think M$'s $hared $ource program)
The 'Redistribution' is also permitted. If use of source is permitted && modification is permitted - how can redistribution of modified source *NOT* be permitted?
All this aside, it is quite clear that the nature of the *BSD license allows people to take, modify, and redistribute *ANY WAY THEY PLEASE* code someone released as BSD. I Know he did not release this as BSD - but he should have known damn fucking well that if he were to be putting his code into a *BSD* project where 99% of the code is BSD, if his license was OPPOSED to the ideals there - he could/should/ought to have made it ABUNDANTLY clear. If the legaleese in his license was intended to mean what he asserts now, then he should have been *VERY* clear that this is what he meant - in the context of the rest of the project, the people he was dealing with and the level of attention paid to such issues Mr. Reed is really pushing his luck for people to accept the 'oh yeah, i also really meant this' crap he's pulling now.. if this is what he intended.. his license dosnt say it.
Duh. Copyright law takes away your ability to give away software that you didn't write-- unless it is very old software or the writer actively disclaims copyright. The GPL comes along and hands me some additional rights, if I agree to not deprive others of those additional rights in the process of exercising them myself. The GPL has taken nothing away, and in the process granted me the ability to do things that are normally illegal without added permission. There is no price for using GPL software. You must agree to the terms of the GPL to distribute GPL software-- if you want to call that a price, so be it. But arguing semantics is a bad way to make your point if you think developers shouldn't protect their work from being taken and used in proprietary derivatives to which they themselves may have no access. It's a bit like saying "It's not really free speech if I can't tell lies about public figures without being sued."
I do not have a signature
I assume you have a control group for your very scientific assertion that the last 300 years of innovations were based on intellectual property alone.
I at least provide the anecdote of Salk- innovation without ip. Here's another- the legality of reverse engineering allowed the PC revolution to proceed through the creation of IBM clones. Had this been found to be illegal, I assert that slashdot would not exist and computers would still be tools that only corporate and academic scientists were allowed to see for the most part. I could go on, but I'll wait until you back up your inane assertion.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
And this somehow encourages innovation? Open information encourages innovation by providing the basis for future works based on the original.
Again, you are without any support for your assertion. You imply that we need ip laws for large capital investments. The problem is, such a large part of the money spent in those investments is just for dealing with the legalities of what's being invented, coupled with the fact that each competitor in the industry must reinvent the wheel to prevent being sued rather than catapult from accumulated open knowledge, there's less money for actual innovation than there would be if there were no intellectual property monopolies. In other words, intellectual property as currently envisioned creates inefficiencies in the market and huge barriers to entry that vastly overwhelm the monetary incentive for innovation supposedly offered by the patent/copyright systems. And don't even get me started on how lawyers regularly advise their clients *not* to keep up with the latest work in their fields for fear that they'll read something someone else figured out and it will make their IP claims invalid.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
In a truly free market (i.e., without the temporary monopolies granted by "intellectual property"), the GPL would be redundant because everyone would already have all the freedoms you describe. The GPL isn't a virus, it's a vaccine. It keeps the intellectual property market from destroying itself. Salk could have taken a patent out on the polio vaccine, but he said that "would be like patenting the sun". We don't have many people with that much character these days.
Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom.
What a lovely little rhetorical flourish you add with the phrase "infectious". How is this different from laws which coercively restrict your freedom? The old dictum "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies here. The idea of enforced freedoms requires that a little liberty be given up so that more total liberty will be available for more people. The GPL is just an example of the democratic system at work.
Intellectual property law (rather than the GPL) is the root of the problem, creating artificial monopolies without achieving its stated purpose of fostering innovation. This is what clogs up the market, and the GPL is the most powerful weapon available to keep information and ideas available to the public rather than in the hands of faceless corporations.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Hopefully this will make all the coders think twice before they change the licence agreements on their software. Looks like that in 2 yrs or so, when somebody mentions ipf, everybody would associate it with OpenIPF, quite the same like ssh=OpenSSH.
This is the place where you write something that will make you seem like a complete idiot.
Well shit, guess I won't be updating my firewall from cvs. :)
Seriously though, this sucks. Big ones. Though it lacks a couple of features I'd like to see, all in all, ipf is pretty badass. I'll miss it. And even if Darren changes to a BSD license or GPL's it, chances are OpenBSD will never use it again. Theo can hold a grudge like that.
The question is, will FreeBSD and NetBSD follow suit?
You are sadly mistaken
Nobody is forcing you to close your source code or "non-free" source code. If you find it repulsive, make sure you are developing software that is GPL'd, or make sure they are Lgpl'd. It's very simple.
Of course, if you are just an closed source basher, that's not saying very much for you personally. I can understand your sentiment, but I don't think you can extrapolate sentiment to a generalized condemnation of a software license. Think hard about other people's freedoms to do whatever they damn well want to, including use a software license that furthers their interests.
Companies that use closed source software know very well what they are getting into. IBM has a literal army of lawyers analyzing every legal move the company makes. They dont consider the closed source a threat to their "freedom" if IBM follows a few guidelines about its use. And if they do use closed source software wisely they stand to benefit greatly. They already have wagered and continue to wager billion dollars on close source software, including several closed source operating systems, with the calculation that it will pay off greatly.
Maybe you should reconsider the fallacies you've just propounded. They are obviously wrong and misleading.
Burn Hollywood Burn
The point is not that he doesn't allow the OpenBSD guys to change the code. The point is that OpenBSD won't allow ipf to be a part of their distribution unless *anyone* can legally modify and use the code.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
Developing open source software with a license that doesnt give the freedoms like the BSD and GNU GPL license will only hurt the community. Simply because not many will want to use it. So instead of another developer wasting time doing the SAME THING over again under a license with freedom, he could be doing something truly innovative.
When will they learn!
Linux: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
James Brents
he lives in canada.
"I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
"Why waste effort developing a new packet filter? Just use ipf." I guess it's not wasted effort anymore. ;-)
Imagine I patch the ipf code to open up a door... I then distribute (say) binaries of my 'ipf' package... who gets the bad press? Darren. Obviously not fair.
So use it, don't use it... it's just software - not like the world will cease spinning because of a license change!
--
The only thing worse than a programmer with a screwdriver is a user with an idea!
just taken a look at the URL referenced in the original slash announcement with regards to the license change: http://false.net/ipfilter/2001_05/0332.html
and, i don't know about you, but surely this statement:
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors.
DOES NOT IMPLY this statement:
+ * Yes, this means that derivitive or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent.
i think darren reed needs to get a little freshair.net!