Slashdot Mirror
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
darthcamaro writes "In an article on InternetNews.com, PHP co-founder Andi Gutmans takes a small shot at RMS (and the FSF), labelling them as fanatics and as not being representative of PHP's user base. 'Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less. "They are just happy that it's a PHP license and they can do whatever they want with it and can ship it with their commercial products," he said.' The comments were made in the context of the recent MySQL LGPL to GPL licesing problem which is what the article is really about. '"We definitely don't see eye to eye on the issue of licensing. He [Richard Stallman] doesn't like our licensing and we know that," Gutmans said. "We're aware of each other, but the PHP project has no intention of moving to some sort of GPL license."'"
Really, it looks to me like the crux of the issue is that the devlopers of PHP don't like being told what 'free' means. And really, who can blame them? Freedom is certainly worth speaking up for, but from what I got from the article it seems as though all the parties concerned are using free licenses. In fact, I think that Gutman nailed it when he said "As long as they are not inhibited from being able to use PHP I don't see a problem from the end user's perspective. Personally I don't really see a big problem."
I have to say that I don't see one either.
PHP LIc. isnt bad
Right. Good. A popular geek staple not conforming to some mass hallucination about morals. GPL is excellent - when it belongs. Intelligence dictates that projects benefit from the right sort of licensing, if licenced at all. Let's not contiunuously kid ourselves to conform with an impossible ideal.
Why should everything down to the machine code have to have a GPL license? It seems to me that there's nothing in PHP's license that would prevent you from licensing YOUR software that YOU wrote in PHP with GPL (just as there's nothing in .NET's license preventing you from using it as the language to write open source in).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
In other news, I need to go to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number
Sheesh, that article is about MySQL's license which they had changed to not allow vendors to redistribute the server and the client.
php has it's license info here:
http://www.php.net/license/
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
of our community for >20 years. I'll take RMS and lisp over Web Weenies and PHP any day.
Oh yea? Well I'll just go and make my own license. With strippers and blackjack. In fact, forget about the license and the blackjack.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I agree with Gutmans completely. Richard Stallman's GPL is free like Henry Ford's quote: "You can have any color as long as it's black." You can link anything with GPL'ed code as long as it's other GPL (or GPL-equivalent) code.
I'll take the BSD license anytime. Code migrates from BSD to Linux (but not Linux to BSD) because of GPL.
PHP co-founder Andi Gutmans takes a small shot at RMS (and the FSF), labelling them as fanatics and as not being representative of PHP's user base. 'Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less.
Up to "user base", I thought Andi was doing a good thing (he takes shots at RMS' fanatism, that can't be all bad can it?).
But his implying that RMS and the FSF stand against making a living off of GPLed products totally misses the point, and makes him lose all coolness factor in my eyes. This is a common mistake that most everybody who does not understand the GPL makes: does the GPL prevent you from making money the Microsoft way? certainly. Does it prevent you from making money? certainly not (see RH, SuSE,...). Is it harder to make money off of GPL products? probably, in the traditional sense, the answer is probably in the services around them.
That Slashdotters and other hysterical Linux fans mistake the GPL for a money-grubbing-prevention license is sad but it's all too common. That somebody as prominent as Andi should make himself look like a fool by spewing the same sort of FUD, that's just wrong. I dislike RMS as much as anyone, but I'll credit the guy for saying over and over again that his aim is *not* to prevent people from making a living with software.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Now, can some one please paste what the PHP license is all about. Please understand that the lay-man might not easily understand legal terms, myself included.
well said, there is no reason to move to GPL if the PHP license does what its founders needed to do.
This might have an obvious answer or something, but I just don't see it. I was under the impression that once you submit your code to an open source project, you're submitting it under the current lisence of the project. When a project changes it's lisence, do they need to contact everyone who has submitted code to the project and get permission to release under the new lisence? That doesn't sound like an easy task for some large projects, so I'm guessing that's not how it's done. Can someone clarify this for me?
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less
I doubt it. There is a huge non-profit/amateur base of users--look no further than the numerous php projects hosted on sourceforge.
How many major for-profit php apps can you name? Yes, many commercial sites use PHP. But a ton of noncommercial sites do too.
It is somewhat sad that the PHP developers don't see "the rest of us" as a significant portion of their user base, just as it was sad to see RMS not understand that his political message surrounding free software was turning many people off.
PHP has got something good, why change it? I'm with... that dude on this, when i wrote php i didnt care about the licence only that i could download and use it for free ($0). I consider the GPL a good licence but PHP has a good thing going and i dont think it needs a GPL licence or that it could benifit alot from it.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
and thats the difference between a hobby project and a professional product
but hey developers know better than salespeople right ?
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5173014.html?part= rss&tag=feed&subj=news
From March 12th.
and of course slashdot in some stupid "poop in the eye" moment screwed the story completely up because a cluebie posted the article.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
With PHP5, PHP langauge is very useful and powerful now, is this the turning point that gives the creators the idea that it can actually be used to make a profit the other way?
If you read the text of the php license it would appear to be almost on par with a bsd license. RMS prob is upset because it would appear the license does not require releasing source code if you realease modified binaries. It's all semantics of the word free. Free as in cannot be closed again or free as in you can do whatever you want with it. Nothing more than a bsd v gpl debate and neither camp with change the others mind anytime soon.
:(){
If it's too BSD-like, then this is a completely meaningless debate. CEO dude is right, PHP's users won't care. If it's too Sun-like, then there's something to talk about.
Oh. Here's what RMS says:That's still vague. What's the hiccup? It looks like RMS has no ideological problem with this license. Is there a new, worse license?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
This "you can still make money" bullshit is rediculous. I can still make money giving away GPL software by working at fucking McDonalds too, but I want to sell software, so I am not going to do that. You can't say people are bad or wrong for wanting to sell software, or for saying that the GPL prevents them from doing so, cause it does. Not everyone can or wants to be a service or support company, the GPL will never be everywhere, so deal with it and quit calling FUD when people don't do things the RMS way.
Good for PHP. More projects should stand up to RMS's GPL thuggery.
because with that attitude thats all it will ever be
The PHP license seems to be working pretty well for PHP right now, so there may not be a need to change it. And, of course, if you write the software, you get to pick the license. But other people still have a right to debate and criticize you as well.
OTOH, RMS's concerns aren't (just) philosophical or "religious". RMS's views are based on decades of experience with bad things that can happen to software under different licenses; his concerns are real and informed.
If you want to be sure that software remains open source and that it will continue to survive and thrive, the GPL and LGPL are time-tested licenses whose consequences (both good and bad) people understand better. That doesn't mean other licenses aren't as good or maybe even better from an OSS perspective, it's just harder to know.
But it still sucks that Red Hat have stayed at MySQL v3 due to the MySQL licensing
Andi Gutmans is a co-founder of the Zend company, not PHP.
Rasmus Lerdorf is the founder of PHP.
On the other hand most code ever touched by the GPL is freely available to me, while the same cant be said about software containing BSD code.
I'm glad that Gutmans is willing to stand up to the FSF. It seems that the FSF wants software to be free - but part of being free is having the right to develop non-free software.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Before you start a crusade over this, read the fucking summary again and notice that the point you make is included within the text of the summary!
The comments were made in the context of the recent MySQL LGPL to GPL licesing problem which is what the article is really about.
Maybe RMS is a little fanatical - but be thankful for that. Look at all the great software his vision has provided us with. It's fine to complain and stuff, but I think he's given more to us (the little people) than anyone else (I can think of) for so little (free!). Also, the small distiction between GPL and the PHP license (which I don't understand) may one day in the more distant future be a big deal! For one, I'm glad RMS is out there taking the hard stance with eyes to the future.
I am NOT changing my name to Barnaby ...
...
...
The DMCA has NOT been overturned
The sky is NOT falling
Since when is news what is NOT happening?
It completely fails to define what exactly is the license difference being argued over. Oh well, I guess that wasn't of interest.... the flaming was what was interesting to the reporter/editor.
Would someone who knows please define what exactly is the license difference being argued over?
I don't see how any slashdot reader not already familiar with the dispute can have an informed opinion on this matter to post based on that article....
Hans
Html is a wonderful thing
= rss&tag=feed&subj=news">Html is a wonderful thing</a>
<a href=" http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5173014.html?part
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
FYI AFAIK I think this is better:
PHP co-founder is aware of RMS (and the FSF) an told about it in the context of the MySQL LGPL to GPL licesing problem.
In other news, L8R I need to go to the ATM machine and punch in my PIN number, TTYL!
IAC BAIK
BFN
For acronyms translation
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
In the 80's, there was a GCC Public License, an Emacs Public License, and a GDB Public License. This made it awkward for people to mix the source code of these projects, so Stallman wrote a General Public License. The goal was to enable projects to share code. (remove the legal reading and interpretation and let hackers hack.)
Every now and again, someone who doesn't know the history, repeats it's mistakes.
Stallman asks people to use the GPL, but he doesn't take issue with people using other compatible licenses. He asks people to move to a compatible license - not necessarily the GPL - if their current license is incompatible. He's seen the problem, he's seen the solution, he tries to show people the two.
Another on-topic article is David Wheelers "Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else."
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Andi Gutmans seems to have considered his comments for very little time, or is intentionally choosing to label a diverse group of people with FUD like this:
"The GNU community, in my opinion, is a very fanatic community and I don't think it represents the real serious open source users. It definitely doesn't represent the PHP user base," Gutmans said.
"Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less. "They are just happy that it's a PHP license and they can do whatever they want with it and can ship it with their commercial products," he said.
It seems that almost everyone that has an alterior motive for disliking the GPL chooses to hide behind this incorrect criticism. GPL'ed code *can* be used in commercial products, and the weird thing about hearing this crap from Gutmans is that PHP is already Open Source.
- Brian.
Okay, bashing RMS with knowing wink is an oh so easy way to get street cred points, but I personally would like to see *less* projects using their own made-up licenses.
I don't actually know what the PHP license says. I understand that it's a free software license, but I can't really remember what makes it different from any other license. I do know what the GPL (and the BSD) licenses say, pretty much by heart, because so many projects use them.
Is there some reason PHP couldn't just use one of the two licenses (or maybe with a short caveat, like "BSD license *except* you need to name it differently than PHP").
It's just annoying that projects have to make up their own licenses. It's like if every project made up their own GUI widgets (and invariable, the folks with their own special licenses are RMS-haters, I wonder why that is).
Instead of making up your own license (to be different, to poke RMS in the eye, whatever), please pick an existing license.
Also, another reason PHP doesn't want to be GPL: they have such an insestuous relationship with the commercial Zend company.
sub-rant: It's maddening that such a commonly-used language like PHP does not have a decent default way to compile and cache byte code, like mod_perl or Python does *out of the box*.
(The freely available programs like turck-mmcache and ioncube accelerator DO NOT WORK RELIABLY so please don't tell me I'm an idiot and I should use one of those. I tried both of them and they would either not pick up changed PHP files, lock up due to shared memory bugs, segfault, or spew garbage on the browser screen at random times. Besides the turck-mmcache guy has been hired by Zend, to keep him "off the streets" I guess).
Even the free (but not Free) Zend optimizer can't be downloaded without going to their site, and I have no idea how it works or what it does because it's closed-source.
Somebody should write a *free* GPL (or BSD, either way, I happen to like the GPL) version of PHP with an overhauled bytecode engine, basically fork it from Zend.
PS: it's funny when people praise others for "standing up" to RMS. Yeah, you really overcame a great hardship there, because RMS put your license on his web site and said it wasn't GPL-compatible. Ooooh, RMS is oppressing me!
Where the HELL is the "interesting" in "i havent read the license can someone summarize it for me plzkthx".
Since when was anyone required to keep RMS happy?
RMS doesn't like something, well boo fucking hoo. The day I start basing my choices in life and in business off of what he (or any other person driven by ideology other than pragmatism) thinks, is the day I shoot myself in the head.
The worst thing you can do when an ideologue starts trying to debate you, especially when they have no power to make you do anything, is give them the time of day. Just look at them and grin, especially if you want to see a grown man throw a temper tantrum that most 4 year old's would be in awe of.
The developers of PHP have their user base to answer to, aka the people who actually use the product. They don't have to answer to those who don't use the product, and especially those who will choose not to use it because they're the computer industry's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh's Ditto-Heads.
Luckily these guys are easy to spot. Anytime someone bends over backwards to use the tounge twister "GNU/Linux," you can be sure that they are either a true-believer, or pandering to those who are. Either way you know to take what they say with a huge grain of salt, especially the further removed the topic is from purely technical matters.
Lee
I repeat: READ THE GPL BEFORE COMMENTING ABOUT IT!!!
they've had years to fix this. this problem started long ago. mysql did it to themselves, and, with the popularity of php (specifically the number of site-building packages that make use of it), hopefully mysql ab will see the error of their ways
perhaps now we'll start seeing more and more sites deploying php/pgsql
vodka, straight up, thank you!
I'm with ya' :-)
until the open source people forget about their political/legal bickering and focus instead on solid technology. that's what really matters in the end.
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
In other news, Microsoft has recently announced that it has no plans to relicense Windows or Office under the GPL. Apache, Sun, Oracle, the BSD teams, and just about every other commercial software company have followed suit and not licensed their flagship products under the GPL.
The PHP team has shown great pride at being the leader in this worldwide movement of not licensing software under the GPL.
I mean, who the fuck actually uses PHP?
I mean, apart from php.net ???
And I've heard rumours they might be moving to asp.net...
Here's a license that preserves some of the Open Source philosophy of the GPL, without strangling anyone - http://www.zesiger.com/license/ - Basically, it gives absolute freedom, as in beer and otherwise, for a period of time that allows people to do as they please before being required to release the source.
RMS and FSF lost credit because they don't produce anymore. They had no important products released any longer except those traditional FSF softwares.
If you just talk, no one will listen.
To be fair to PHP though, it does have (had?) the advantage of a smaller memory footprint, and I gather that a lot of ISPs feel more comfortable about letting random users loose with it rather than giving them access to mod_perl.
ObOnTopic: I'm mildly annoyed at the author of the article proudly proclaiming that PHP is the "P" in LAMP. That "P" has a number of interpretations.
Though in general LAMP is a really lousy piece of terminology. People use it to mean "free/open source web technology" when it's far too specific about software names. Someone who uses FreeBSD and a Postgresql database evidentally doesn't qualify... but if Postgresql would change it's name to MostGreatSql, then all of a sudden it would be allowed in the club...
What's next, a story called, "FSF Not Moving to BSD License", or "Bush Not Voting For Kerry"?
Now with recursion at the front AND back of the acronym!
Tweet, tweet.
tastey
"It seems that the FSF wants software to be free - but part of being free is having the right to develop non-free software."
Sorry, I may be frighteningly stupid, but in what way does the GPL prevent anyone from writing non-free software? The only limitation that I'm aware of is that if you use someone else's GPL'ed software, you have to respect their wish that their software remains free.
So, unless you can find a quote from RMS saying that there is only One True License, and that all developers should be forced to use it every time, I'd suggest that you're talking through your tin-foil hat.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I understand that BSD zealots hate the GPL relicensing clause, but jesus christ, give me a break man! RMS doesn't disapprove of BSD or BSD-compatible licenses, unless they have an advertising clause (which turned out to be annoying enough in practice that the major *BSD projects shun them, too). He doesn't dislike licenses that don't have the same restrictions as the GPL.
He dislikes licenses that have more restrictions than the GPL. Read that again. MORE. BSD/MIT/XORG do not qualify as more restrictions.
As far as he is concerned, if a license is less restrictive than the GPL, then it can be relicensed as the GPL, so no harm no foul -- an FSF coder can use the code in Free packages (by their definition of free).
The fact that he dislikes the PHP license is because it cannot be relicensed as the GPL, which means snippets of the PHP code cannot be included into any project which is GPLd. This also means that it cannot be included in BSD-style licenses, FYI. He dislikes it because the PHP license is less free.
RMS does not consider the BSD-style licenses to be non-free, he is simply concerned because when he worked at MIT (MIT style license, anyone) a lot of their AI tech was ripped off by Symbolics when the proprietary software revolution began. He designed the GPL as a way to prevent proprietary interests from co-opting his code, and suggests that if you're concerned about that too, that you should use the GPL. If not, by all means, use BSD; either way, you can share your code with GPL projects so he doesn't care.
Do you understand now, or did you understand to begin with an were just trolling?
I can't imagine all the assets and copyrights of the FSF non-profit org being "turned over" to another party. Do you have any court cases as examples?
The FSF currently enjoys the position of probably controlling more intellectual property than any other organization on earth, partly due to a healthy roster of software to which the FSF holds copyright, but mostly because they control the GPL.
It is possible that one day in the future (RMS will die someday, as will the other people on the board) that a corporation could seize control of the FSF. It might be just that a sufficient number of people on the board become willing to sell out. There are currently six Directors of the FSF. I'm not sure what kind of majority is required to make a change. However, if a couple of corporations (say, ones with a lot of money that really didn't like the GPL), pulled together, say, $600 million dollars, perhaps they could pull a coup off. I mean, yes idealism and all that, but the FSF's board is a single point of failure, and if you've fallen upon hard times and are having trouble keeping a roof above your children's head, how far what would you do for $100 million? Would you sell a vote at a board meeting? Even if we suppose that Larry Lessig, Eben Moglen, and RMS are uncorruptable, what about their successors? What happens if a bomb goes off at a board meeting and kills the board en-masse (or, more mundanely, an plane containing members attending a FSF talk crashes)? Has the FSF made provision for such an occurrance?
The idea of modifying the GPL to allow specified "free software friendly" corporations to use GPL software without needing to release their own source in turn has come up before. It is, in fact, why Linus Torvalds releases his software as GPL v2 only (which, unfortunately, means that if a loophole is ever found in the GPL v2, there is no way to rescue his software).
Designing legal systems for the ages in a robust and resiliant manner is *hard*. How long do we expect the GPL to last for? 50 years? That's already one change of hands. 100 years? 300? The United States and its intellectual property system hasn't even been around for 300 years.
May we never see th
The thing that bothers me about PHP is that it is Free... unless you want it to run fast. Even the "free" Zend Optimizer is closed source. It makes me wonder if optimizing patches to the Zend Engine (PHP Engine) would be rejected because they compete with Zend's buisness model. I know Zend doesn't owe me anything, but the fact that fast PHP is not free should weighed properly when evelauting solutions.
PHP will be assimilated, less you want to risk the chance of retiring from the IT industry earlier than expected. You have no chance to survive, make your time.
Seriously, why should they? Most people don't realize what the GPL really is (specifically when you assign copyrights to the FSF). FSF is a software company, and all the software that has the GPL license - with copyrights transferred - belongs to that company. Others may use the GPL code so long as the derivative works still belong to the FSF (actually, it only truly belongs to the FSF if the copyrights of the derivative/new works are assigned back again). No one else can use the FSF's work without the FSF's permission, just like any other proprietary software.
If PHP wants to keep their software free under their terms... what's wrong with that? It's their software.
There was a slashdot post that I didn't get into (read article or comments) that I think was about Malaysia going open source. The person who submitted the article added, "Another victory for open source!" Seriously, f-off. There's no such thing as a victory for open source. Open source is not a movement, it's a matter of fact. The FSF + GPL is a movement, so you can call things a win for the GPL product's copyright's owners, and for the GPL in general.
I have nothing against the GPL or the FSF. Yay Linux, Yay GCC, Yay emacs (ducks). But coercing others to adopt it is wrong.
Moderators should have to take a reading comprehension test.
The result is that it's impossible to incorporate GPL software into a commercial product if you wish the software to remain proprietary. With PHP software, no problem.
And by the way, I don't consider myself one of the "little people". Stallman, at 5' 5", maybe.
It only matters when you develop non-free software derived from GPL'ed software and distribute it.
The GPL doesn't require you to respect the wish that the software remain free, it requires that any new software also be released under the same terms. In that sense, the original code remains free but the new code must also be similarly "free". In that respect it "disrespects" the authors of the new software by preventing them from choosing the licensing terms they prefer.
What is your point exactly? That somehow everyone owes your their work released under the GPL because someone else released code under the GPL? How do you know they developed their work using GPL'ed software and what difference should that make? Who's the hypocrite here?
Some people aren't silver-spooners like RMS and have actually had to work for a wage in order to live. It's easy to take a radical position when you've never needed to earn a paycheck in your life.
e.g. GPL) states that future revisions of the license may be used so updating the Linux code from GPL2 to GPL3 (when it arrives and assuming Linus wishes to use it) will not be a problem.
Linus struck the "or any later version" from the license when he started the project. Since the Linux kernel has hundreds of contributers, it's license is practically stuck at version 2 of the GPL. The GPL as written is in line with Torvald's pragmatic purposes. He apparently did not trust future versions of the license to remain so. Its also bandied about that Torvalds and RMS don't particularly like each other.
This worries me a little because I understand the upcoming version of the license will have some heavy duty mutual defense clauses against software patents. I believe they're trying to come up a legal way of saying filing a software patent suit revokes all rights to distribute and probably use any software under a mutual defense license. The Apache license has such clauses and it is rumored that the new GPL will be fully compatible with it and more compatible with other OSS licenses.
... and if you had a battery operated one, you could have a NiCadNICcard....from ultramarine, LLC...
MySQL seem to be going the trolltech route.
... LGPL == good because if I fiddle with a LGPL project I expect to give my changes back to it. ... As a developer I certainly don't want to GPL the stuff that puts food on the table. MySQL seems to want to make a living off some bastardation of mSQL and SAP, while I admit thats a gross oversimplification, I dont thing its something worthy of a purchase of a license.
... another OSS project goes commercial.
ie. "use our software, buy a license or make it GPL"
Now Free to me isn't Libre, but Free as in beer
I'm certainly wasn't going to make any turnkey project that used mysql before this change, and now I'm going to to cut down on the number of projects I do that involve mysql - there are better - and more "free" software to choose from out there than mysql.
bleh
I couldn't agree more. On its technical merits, I have to say that PHP rocks. However, from a licensing standpoint...*pfft* A better license would be the LGPL, which the article notes, the PHP folks have no intention of following. *sigh*
From GPL 2. b):
You call this freedom??
Forbidding users of your program to use it within their code and sell their programs is not about freedom. It's about imposing your worldview on other people.
Have you actually read RMS?
ESR's the one with his head screwed on straight. RMS is the one who believes everything should be licensed under his definition of Free and that all proprietary software is bad and should not be used or even exist.
ESR, meanwhile, understands that proprietary software exists and probably will continue to exist, and that people will use Free software when it makes sense.
The grandparent isn't referring to the GPL, but the FSF -- read what you quoted again.
"It seems that the FSF wants software to be free - but part of being free is having the right to develop non-free software."
At least the PHP License doesn't incorporate the ideas of the Jabber Open Source License or their ilk.
Those licenses possess the requirement that any modifications be licensed back to the licensor (e.g. Jabber) such that they can turn around and incorporate them into their closed source products without any payment whatsoever. Those clauses strike me as licenses to exploit the goodwill and hard work of contributors to your codebase, as a substitute for paying an engineering staff.
1 of the 8 is LGPL, the rest are GPL. Me thinks this Andi doesn't know what he is talking about?
searh for "php" here:
http://sourceforge.net/search/
First, I am not arguing that the GPL is bad, evil, wrong, etc. It has its place and authors of software certainly have the right to prefer it. The GPL is more restrictive than some other open source licenses. The fact that its restrictions are 'well meaning" or "politically popular" does not alter the fact that it is more restrictive. That said ...
The GPL is free as in free speech, meaning "freedom". With freedom, as we all know, comes responsibility.
PHP/MIT/BSD et al licences are free as in free time, meaning "no (or few) strings attached".
Your definition of "freedom" is self serving and wrong. Given two licenses the one with the fewer strings is the more free, i.e. GPL is the less free of the two.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
GPL loses here, I am restrained from using it in non-open projects.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
n/a
3. a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
GPL loses here, it is certainly politically biased. You may like this bias but that is a different topic.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
GPL looses here, its conditions can be unpleasant for some commercial users. Even onerous is some cases. Consider GPL'd software that was taxpayer funded. I realize it is popular mythology that corporations pay no taxes but after having been around a number of small companies and small business owners I know that this particular myth is incorrect.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
GPL loses here as well, quite obviously.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
n/a
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
n/a
8. a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
An even more obvious loss by GPL compared to PHP/BSD.
b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
n/a
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: "the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form" (John W. Aldridge).
Again GPL loses, it exercises more control.
To emphasize I have nothing against the GPL or people that choose to release their work under the GPL. That is certainly their right. My only argument is against the notion that the GPL embodies freedom.
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.
4...............No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
Same thing, basically.. that's what makes half of these comments so darn FUNNY.
Christ this is like the 5th time I've posted this.. READ THE LICENSE:
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.
4...............No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
If that's the BSD license, then RMS is Brad Pitt.
Don't you guys get it yet?? This isn't about the *terms of the license*, it's about *scoring points* by bashing RMS and playing "not invented here" by coming up with Yet Another License That's 90% the Same As Some Other License.
Just public domain it and be done with it. I'd like to see someone argue against the ultimate license.
Let them own it.
Just don't expect me and many others to bother to contribute with bug-reports, fixes and general help any more.
Ya better pay me if you want help on your product from now on...
...You want to write proprietry software, start by writing your own compiler, and stop freeloading off of GNU
Oh yeah. Slashdotters read first, then comment. That's hilarious.
It's almost as funny as all the posts complimenting the guy for having the "guts" to stand up to RMS. As if everybody else quakes in their boots at the thought of criticizing him.
I really admire Bill Gates for having the guts to stand up to RMS like that.
That being the case, my question becomes whether people are actually looking for freedom or if freedom is just a nice word that fits closely enough to what they want.
Personally, I want a license that will allow people to view and modify the code for use in their own projects, submit bugfixes back to the originator and allow for greater learning by viewing past methods of problem solving / logic, without taking away the rights of the original author. As far as I know (and I could be mistaken), the GPL does that fairly well. It may not be pure freedom, but it's much better than the usual EULA.
GPL maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
BSD maximizes individual liberty at the potential expense of society as a whole. This is, by definition, a libertarian philosophy.
Compelling another to a course of action against their will is the antithesis of freedom. You can't force other people to be socially responsible. Freedom includes the right to be an asshole.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The whole idea of GPL is to force people into developing free software by making everything that touches the GPL to become GPL.
Not so fast...
"Touches the GPL" is not quite right. "CONTAINS GPL'd code" would be more accurate.
The GPL rests on the right of copyright holders to license their work on their own terms. Your original statement implies the GPL is some way to cheat proprietary software businesses out of their code, for the community to use some sort of fancy legal fiction to take from the software industry that which the community has not earned.
In reality, the opposite is true. One can use GPL'd code as a platform and even bundle it with ones own proprietary software, all without incurring any obligation to open up your proprietary code. You simply may not incorporate it INTO your proprietary code -- because doing so is reneging on the terms of "payment" for your licensure of the GPL'd code (and a paltry payment at that -- mere cooperation).
Attacking the GPL is, ultimately, an assertion of a mythical right to commit fraud.
-- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
How ironic that ranting about the "offtopic" moderation gets the poster moderated "offtopic"
Ohh and everything on your "BSD'r" machine uses the BSD license? Suuuure...
You sound more like a BS'r then a BSD'r.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Or buy a proprietary compiler...
BSD people want their code used... period. It's a great license... Truly altruistic and makes the world a better place. BSD Sockets and the TCP/IP stack is probably the BIGGEST reason that TCP/IP is the dominant protocol and the Internet took off. If Microsoft (little company with 95% of the desktops), WinSOCK (the socket solution before Microsoft made a decent one), and Apple (another little billion dollar company with most of the rest of the remaining 5%, at least at the time protocol "wars" could have happened) couldn't get TCP/IP stacks easily and cheaply, there would be no reason for TCP/IP to be adapted.
Microsoft had NetBEUI, which couldn't scale, and their own implementation of Novell's IPX/SPX stack. Do you think the fact that they could freely adopt a working TCP/IP stack was PART of the reason that they started adopting it for their networks? If the only option were some GPL's TCP/IP stack, Microsoft might have just pushed IPX/SPX or something equally proprietary, instead of a freely available specification.
The reason that BSD people seem to have a problem with the GNU/Linux and GPL fanatics is that they take BSD code, don't share back (so far, no different than proprietary developers), but then TALK about how free they are and trash the BSD systems as being inferior.
Apple took a LOT of BSD code, they gave some back where they made changes, and speak positively about FreeBSD. They also hired some FreeBSD people. There isn't any complaining about OS X in the BSD community, everyone seems to be cheering Apple on for bringing a System with a full FreeBSD user-space to the mass market.
The problem is that Linux took a lot of BSD code, didn't share back, and THEN copped an attitude that is the problem.
If Linux people when using BSD code showed the SAME respect as they demand of their code (sharing the changes upstream under the BSD-license), there wouldn't be an issue. Is there a legal requirement that the Linux people do so? No... But the last time I checked, being a good person wasn't defined as taking advantage of good deeds and doing whatever you could get away with.
If the Linux people truly valued the sharing of code, there would be a real effort to provide changes/improvements back up to the BSD pool when they borrowed code... i.e. treat it as THOUGH it was under the GPL? Why? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
The RIGHT thing to do, if you are a GPL advocate and want others to respect your code is to TREAT other code as though it was under the GPL. If you use Public Domain code, put your code into the Public Domain, if you use BSD code, put your code under the BSD license. That is following the Golden Rule.
This bizarre idea that you should do whatever you can get away with is just plain immoral.
I'm not questioning the RIGHT of the users of BSD code to lock it away under whatever conditions they want. I'm questioning why people seem to think that DOING SO is moral and just.
Alex
That's reasonably valid. Perhaps the GPL better embodies community. You may use a community park for whatever you wish, as long as you are not excluding others from that park. It's certainly not free, but if it were then pretty soon there would be no park.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I think you mean to say:
The terms, "non-copyleft" say it all and that is an ideological problem. When you release your work under a non-copy left license, you allow other to take your work without giving anything back to you or anyone else. They might not even have to give you credit when asked. At the same time, they do not have to share the work with those who use their closed source binaries. In the worst of all cases, they make money by screwing your potential users and then use that money to screw you with bogus patents, FUD, and other anti-competitive nonsense. It is free software but it is not the best thing for you to do to your neighbors or yourself.
Who are you helping with a non copyleft license and why do you want to do that? Who do you hurt with a copyright license?
Andi's statement, "Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less." is more a self furfilling prophecy than anything else. I was unaware of the issue before this, but thought that php was really cool. Now I have to think a little more about it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's amazing how much drivel people can write over some tiny little differences.
The GPL and the BSD (and the PHP which for some reason you group with BSD, but the terms are more similar to GPL [can't change the license]) are extremely similar in terms of "freedom".
In fact they are all (GPL, BSD, PHP) free licenses by the FSF's definition.
The Microsoft, etc., EULA's are not free, by anybody's definition (even microsoft's).
I much prefer the GPL, BSD, PHP licenses to the microsoft licenses.
I prefer the GPL and BSD though, because they are much more air-tight and well thought out. The PHP license has a big "show stopper" though: it incorporates ANOTHER license (Zend Engine license) by URL reference. That other license may be worst than GPL and MS EULA combined. It may change tomorrow, who knows!
Nitpicking does matter: legal nitpicking, the kind that might get you in court. I feel a lot more comfortable with the clearly-written and *constant* GPL, than the PHP which has this show-stopper clause.
Nitpicking over the definition of "free" is really silly, especially since ALL THE LICENSES BEING DISCUSSED ARE FREE. The only difference between GPL and BSD are visible when you *change* the software and *redistribute it*. Hardly a big deal for a majority of software *users*. The difference between GPL and PHP are that you can distribute the PHP binaries without accompanied source code. Big deal again.
This is why people think the open source "zealots" are so disconnected from reality. They break out the dictionary to nitpick "free". How's that going to help me run my business??
By the way if you want a definition for free that the FSF uses, it's on their web site.
When we talk about freedom in a philosophical sense, especially the construction being used by RMS, we are talking about "freedom from x", where x is the philosophically defined constraint. When RMS says that "the GPL guarantees freedom", his construction is effectively saying "the GPL guarantees freedom from closed source software". Implied within that argument (though RMS is often more explicit) is the idea that closed source software is the constraint.
With this in mind, the GPL is more free than the BSD, MIT etc, because the GPL ensures freedom from closed source software. Of course you may not agree with that conception of freedom or the premises on which it is based. That does not prevent the internal validity of RMS claims that the GPL is more free.
All definitions of free are self-serving, but that does not make them wrong.
I come from a LAN down under
Where the packets flow and routers chunder
Fan and fanatic share the same root. Why must people follow ESR or RMS. It is almost as funny as the people getting all bent over what the Dixie Chicks said about Bush. Why should I care what a singer thinks about politics any more than I care what the wife of a senator thinks about music "Thanks Tipper, those warning labels really helped a lot. How much did those hearings cost?"
Why should I really care what ESR or RMS thinks about the software I choose to use? I mean all this talk about freedom shouldn't I have the right to choose what software I use? Shouldn't I also have the right to choose how I want to release any software I write? If I want to GPL it great, If I want to BSD it that is good also. If I want to charge ONE BILLION DOLLARS for it well then it is my work and if you do not like it write it yourself.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Your definition of "freedom" is self serving and wrong. Given two licenses the one with the fewer strings is the more free, i.e. GPL is the less free of the two.
Bull. Let's use an analogy of countries to compare the BSD License and the GPL...
- The BSD License is like a country where the government is forbidden from infringing on the people's freedoms, and turns a blind eye to its citizens committing violence against other citizens, claiming that if it arrests criminals, it's infringing on the people's freedoms.
- The GPL is like a country where people are free to do whatever they like, as long as they don't infringe on other people's freedoms, commit violence against other people, etc. It knows that the only way to protect freedom is to punish those who infringe on the rights of others.
In other words, the GPL is like a modern, Western-style democracy, where freedoms are protected from all forms of attack (at least in theory--implementations aren't perfect), and the BSD license is like pure anarchy.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I don't see how misapplying a ton of definitions helps clarify which license is "free-er". A better way to look at is by analogy.
Take two imaginary places: the US as governed by the constitution, and Anarchyland. (The fact that I refer to the US as governed by the constitution as an imaginary place can by interperted as you like.)
In the US, there are many laws that restrict what you can do: you can't kill people, and you cant buy a television station and broadcast 24/7 that your neighbor picks his nose (unless you neighbor is a public figure, of course). By the techincal definition you seem to be using, every one of these laws takes away your freedom, thus making you less free. In that technical sense, I agree.
In Anarchyland, you can do whatever you want. There are absolutely no laws against anything. You can kill your neighbor if he picks his nose in public. According to your technical definition, Anarchyland has the absolute maximum freedom that could ever be achieved in a society.
Now, look at the end result. In Anarchyland, nobody can leave their house, because they are afraid of being killed. It is incredibly unsafe to drive on the highway, and the end result is that people can hardly do anything. In contrast, the US allows people to basically do what they want, when they want, provided they dont want to kill people. I would call this freedom.
To avoid pissing off the libertarians, I should specify that the analysis doesn't have to work out the way I described it. Perhaps Anarchyland actually provides more freedom in the end. My point is that simply looking at the statues themselves is not enough to determine the freedom they provide or protect. It is necessary to analyze the end result and determine how it affects freedom overall. Simply stating that the GPL has more restrictions is like stating that the US has stricter laws against murder, so people in the US are less free than people in Iraq.
1. The condition of being free of restraints.
GPL loses here, I am restrained from using it in non-open projects.
Again, this is sophistry. The only thing you're restrained from doing is restraining others, resulting in a net REDUCTION in restraints.
It's the same theory that allows free societies to have prisons- you can't have freedom unless you deal with those who would take it away from you.
Think! You're exercising a USA Today reading level on a Tolstoy-level problem.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I have *purchased* many software packages based on GPL software such as Codeweaver's Crossover Office and was happy to do so. They contribute their code changes back to the WINE project, and in the meantime I'm paying for a product that's supported and bundled nicely to work the way it is supposed to work.
If you don't want to write GPL software, then DON'T USE GPL CODE in your software. Write it yourself. The people that wrote that code DO NOT want you to use it to make money off their work.
Nobody is forcing you to write GPL code, so don't do it.
I happen to believe that there IS a lot of money to be had on GPL based software.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
A lot of the people here that are claiming the GPL places more restrictions and thus less free are missing a very simple fact: Copyright law is in itself a restriction - that the GPL effectively disables.
Since the GPL restrictions actually disable the ability to use the restrictions applied by the government via copyright law, it does not only add restrictions, but by adding these restrictions, removes other restrictions.
Basically the question is whether the freedom to apply the copyright restrictions to the code and restrict others is more or less important than the freedom to share, copy, learn from and modify the code. I believe that since the first is only artificially possible because of copyright law, the second is in fact more important - making the GPL more free.
Code migrates from the "please exploit me proprietary software companies" pool to the "please don't exploit me without sharing" pool but not back. Hm, fancy that.
Annie, get your gun. They're trying to take away our freedom to have proprietary extensions written to our software! The dirty, filthy, rotten, freedom-hating COMMIES!
You can have my right to have someone else add proprietary extensions to my own software when you pry it from my cold, dead, carpal tunnels.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
You're description basically shows that in a so called anarchy state - "laws" do arise irregardless of whether or not they are codified by a government. These "laws" restrict the freedom of anarchy (i.e. my neighbor will shoot me if I pick my nose in public - so therefore I cannot pick my nose in public.
Ursula LeGuin wrote a great book about this occuring in an anarchistic society called "the Dispossesed".
Personally I think that wherever there is no "law" there is always the law of the big stick. As in "I have a big stick and you don't. Do what I tell you to do or I will hit you on the head with it."
Then again this may be the main governing law in all forms of government.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
"Offtopic", eh?
Sigh.
It does prove my point admirably, but in doing so stifles my ability to point it out, y'know?
May we never see th
"In that sense, the original code remains free but the new code must also be similarly "free"."
Absolutely correct. If you choose to stand on the shoulders of this particular giant - who happens to want to remain free - you must respect its wishes.
"In that respect it "disrespects" the authors of the new software by preventing them from choosing the licensing terms they prefer."
Er... I believe you are trying to make the cart pull the horse here. If you choose to profit from someone else's labours by adding to them in some way, they have every right to have some influence on the terms under which you distribute the results. If you write new software (your word), then you too get to dictate the terms under which it is used. No one requires that you use GPL software in your own code.
No disrespect there, as far as I can see....
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I think you misunderstand a few things. It is my belief that developers do know better than salespeople when it comes to other developers...
Now, consider the name GNU - Gnu's Not Unix, specifically, it is supposed to be an imitation of Unix, which was developed to be a developer's system, and so was Gnu. Gnu gave us an editor, compiler, assembler, utilities, and everything you need for a unix like OS, well, except the all important kernel, but lets not go there.
My point is, the GPL is by developers, for developers, not grandmas. It's like pushing a cube through a round hole, hammer it enough and it'll squeeze through, but it wasn't meant to fit that way.
IMHO RMS thinks all computer users are like him, tech savvy, and therefore should appreciate his high minded idealism, but common sense shows, things just aren't that way.
Except no one is forced to use GPL software. If you don't like it, use something else.
The GPL is quite compatible with capitalism: The author retains copyright, but allows others to redistribute derivative works, provided the source for the derivative work is available under the same terms. Quid pro quo.
Hmmm, wouldn't forcing people to be socially responsible make you an asshole? QED. Anyway, nothing forces you to accept the GPL, since you can choose to not create derivative works.
This message has been scanned for memes and dangerous content by MindScanner, and is believed to be unclean.
First, I didn't define "freedom". Secondly, what makes you think it's "self-serving"? You don't know a damn thing about me.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"Most of PHP's user base are people that are using PHP to make a living and they wouldn't care less. " ~Gutmans Yes many of the php user don't care about GPL license. Same as many earthlings dun care about green house effect, global warming and pollution. So one day to wake up seeing your house buried by snow or wash away by the sea. Many people dun care many things but that doesn't mean they dun deserve the right to have it. Microsoft do this, user dun care, we control the things they dun care, and then we master the users. Obviously many people do care, that is why Scientist shout "stop the pollution", and FSF shout "Use GPL!". And they are fanatic, you can be sure of that. Because they are to wake up a large large bunch of people who have dun care syndrome or some with their ugly intention. You can't do that without a little passion or better yet be a fanatic that people call you. Nevertheless we have the right to choose the decision for better or for worse. So, when your house get buried by snow or your computer hang. Dun say you have not been warned or people have not shout loud enough. You just didn't lend them your ear.
The claim that "my point is true, by definition" really begs the question, doesn't it? We're obviously having a disagreement about how to measure freedom in the first place.
The GPL argument is that by pruning the bad "freedoms" (proprietary embrace and extend) we can have more of the good freedoms (sharing, reuse, standards), and that the freedom to restrict freedom is not really a "freedom" at all- it is self defeating in terms of net freedom because every exercise of this freedom inherently restricts the freedom of another to do precisely the same thing.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
- The BSD License is like a country where the government is forbidden from infringing on the people's freedoms, and turns a blind eye to its citizens committing violence against other citizens, claiming that if it arrests criminals, it's infringing on the people's freedoms.
You can't apply that analogy. People who use the BSD license do so knowingly and are granting the right for all others to 'infringe' upon their 'freedoms'. There is no Goverment of Software. You write it, you make the choice.
Sigh. We've been through this before.
It isn't ironic. It is expected. Get a dictionary.
see http://www.cpcml.ca/
Good post.
I think some points were over simplified, though. None of the licenses being discussed force anyone to do something against their will. Use of the software is completely volountary in both cases. The main difference I can see between the GPL and BSD is the "share and share-alike" philosophy. This simply values the collective (and individual) right to have access to code modifications higher than the value of the individual to maintain exclusive rights over modified code (and only for software that is generally released). Compare this to commonly accepted laws which actually do restrict behaviour. For example, litter laws protects society at large at the "cost" of restricting an individual's right to dump garbage at will. Tellingly, most people wouldn't consider that an "individual right" in the first-place.
Both licences share a libertarian doctrine, though perhaps to different degrees. After all, the opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, not socialism (which belongs in an economic spectrum).
The GPL is not a socialist philosophy nor is individual liberty compromised. The GPL doesn't restrict your rights though it does place an obligation on you (which you accept only by your volountarily use of the software). Further, you are still free to commoditize your product (or what-have-you) so long as you share-back as well. In fact, it is more akin to a Pareto Optimal solution: it provides the maximum benefit to society and no one is made worse off.
Another great thing about freedom is that through it we can cooperate to try and limit the impact that the assholes have on us. Of course, everyone is a bit of an asshole, so both licenses are good.
Why does this always come up? I in particular hate the extremists on both sides of the fence. Why must everything be GPL compatible? It is a rhetorical question. Think of licenses as governments. If every country where a democracy the world would be dull, corrupt, and would never get Jack or his friend to do anything for a decent price. The fact is we_need_veriety in our diet. The whole idea, theory, religion of open source is great and commendable--but it does not work in all situations. Please do not bring the fight that if everyone would learn how to program under Linux the world would be colorful and full of pretty butterflies. That's just plain poopy. That is like telling 1 billion Chinese people that they have to learn English if they want to be successful.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
Oh nonsense. GPL is a socialistic license and BSD is a capitalistic license. GPL gives the community more rights then the individual, while BSD gives more rights to the individual.
There is nothing anarchist about the BSD license. The license grants specific rights to the person using it. Having no license would be anarchist. My taking FreeBSD, repackaging it, and selling it without source code doesn't harm you or violate your rights. I am not beating you up and forcing you to pay for my product. If you don't want to buy the product, you aren't beaten into submission until you change your mind. Your rights are not infringed and neither are mine. You don't have to buy the product and, if I wanted to, I could still release the source code.
On the other hand, with GPL, my rights are infringed for the supposed betterment of society. I don't have a choice. I have to release the source code.
GPL is like European Society while BSD is more like American Society (though America is moving towards socialism)
This is a impressive post, but really misses the gist of the GPL. The purpose of the GPL is for code to stay free. You might argue that for this to happen some restraints are placed on what to do with the code, but that's really not the point.
Take for instance privancy law. I'm not familiar with the privacy laws of your country, but they might prohibbit companies selling your personal information, they might also prohibbit photographers from taking pictures on your private estate. They might prohibbit lots of other things. So there are several restrictions with regard to provacy laws.
Then by your same reasoning would you say privacy laws are unfree? Or do you see a pattern: to maximize freedom for one, one has to restrict the freedom for others.
The GPL values freedom for the receiver of software more, than the freedom of the provider, in the same way privacy laws favour the individual more than corporations. If you used the checklist to check the freedom of users, the results would be quite different.
>The only thing you're restrained from doing is restraining others,resulting in a net REDUCTION in restraints.
Doesn't GPL restrain others in the sense that any modifications or redistributions must be bundled with source code?
Looking at it the way the grandparent post did, it does appear that GPL increases restraints - all downstream users are restricted in what they can do with GPL software (they _might_ get it and use it gratis (for free), though).
Then you have the BSD license that permits anyone to take control if they're so inclined.
The GPL is about giving the users (and that includes people who'd wish to develop the software also) of the software the three basic rights that are outlined as the requirements for a program that can be called free software on the FSF website.
But here's the part that always seems to get the comments about the GPL not being free: It also attempts to keep those rights for the users. Having control over other people is not freedom in my opinion.
Most of us live in countries that claim their citizens are free, yet we're not able to murder, steal, infringe someone's copyright etc. freely. Quite frankly, if that's the only real freedom I want nothing to do with it.
Everybody is griping about how PHP's license is incompatible with the GPL (meaning you cannot really use stuff under the PHP license with stuff under the GPL license together). So let's look it over, shall we?
Statements 1, 2, and 3 are extremely similar to the stuff you'll find in any and all BSD type licenses. They're basically straight rips from the BSD license, just reworded slightly. This is totally GPL compatible, as these are even less restrictive than the GPL is.
Statement 4 is similar to some parts of the GPL, but essentially it's just saying that they're retaining copyright and thus can change the license. As such, it's not particularly useful or informative, and I'd count it as a null factor. Especially since they cannot retroactively change a license, under any circumstances. This does not break GPL compatibility.
Statement 5 is the one that actually makes it GPL-incompatible, as the GPL states that you cannot place restrictions on the thing above and beyond the GPL itself. So if you derive something from GPL code and PHP-licensed code, it becomes essentially impossible to adhere to both licenses at once. You have to include a statement in your resulting license about this combined thing containing PHP code, while the GPL forbids you from placing that statement into the resulting combined license. Incompatible.
Statement 6 is interesting, because it states that the Zend section is separately licensed if you separate the thing from PHP or modify Zend itself. All this really states is that if you do mess with Zend, you need to rethink your licensing scheme. This may or may not be compatible with the GPL, depending on the resulting Zend license. However, it's most likely incompatible with the GPL, as it places an additional restriction on the use of the combined code that the GPL does not allow, namely that you have to relicense if you modify Zend itself.
Reconciliation:
Statement 5 can be reconciled with the GPL easily: Remove it. That's the only way to make the PHP license compatible there.
Statement 6 is harder. The upshot here is that you'd have to remove it form the resulting combined license and separate Zend from PHP entirely, not distributing it at all. This could be problematic at best.
Upshot:
Avoid using the PHP licensed code with GPL licensed code. Getting them to work together is essentially impossible. It's most likely easier to simply reinvent the wheel, on one side or the other.
Which is more "free":
Depends on your definition of free.
-The GPL places one major restriction on you, namely that the resulting code and changes you make to GPL code is also available under the GPL itself.
-The PHP license places restriction 5 on you, which frankly ain't much, and restriction 6, which is a tough one to deal with if you do anything whatsoever to the Zend engine. Restriction 6 is most definitely bad, except that the vast majority of users of PHP licensed code won't be modifying the Zend engine and so it won't apply to them. It's probably one of the requirements for using Zend, and while it blows, it's not unworkable.
Which would I use:
-If I used GPL code, I'm forced to use the GPL.
-If I used PHP code, I'm not forced to do shit except put in a small one liner or something.
-If I write my own code, I can do whatever I damn well please... And that's the important one here. I would personally not use nor emulate the PHP license, as it's really just a BSD license with some extra bits tossed in. I'd use a BSD license instead, if such was my intent (BSD basically puts it out there similar to being in the public domain, but with copyright retention, just in case). If I wanted the code to stay free forever, as in free for everybody to use and not free for anybody to steal, then I'd use the GPL.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Because they are saying very different things about software and, as a result, they reach different conclusions on some of the most interesting debates about software and how people should be treated.
Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined. Consider web browsers, for instance: if we only had 3 browsers to choose from (say, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape) choice would be satisfied. We would not have software freedom, however, because none of those browsers are free software. They are all proprietary programs. Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software.
Nobody is challenging these powers (certainly not any free software or open source advocate). But there are significant differences between the two licenses you mention, so it is important to help people make informed decisions.
Digital Citizen
This is one of the dumbest analogies ever put on Slashdot (and lord knows there have been some dumb ones).
Apparently the citizens in BSDland are actually asking that you commit violence against them (create closed source commercial products). Those masochists!! And GPLland is operating under the mistaken belief that source code is a God-given right.
Um, BSD is nothing like anarchy, and the GPL is nothing like western democracy. Try agin.
Lest you get distracted again, this is the statement you're trying to disagree with: "Given two licenses the one with the fewer strings is the more free, i.e. GPL is the less free of the two." Good luck!
Free as in "voluntary slavery."
Ben
Work Safe Porn
There are restrictions on both -- in the US, freedom of speech is not an absolute. Under the GNU GPL, your freedom to share and modify comes with a proviso that you cannot deny recipients of distributed derivatives or verbatim copies the freedoms to share and modify the program.
Not at all. The FSF uses driving a car to help understand why restricting some freedoms are necessary to preserve others; I'll attempt to paraphrase it briefly: we cannot have all possible freedoms because some conflict. So we make choices and give up some freedoms to keep other freedoms. For instance, we are not allowed to drive anywhere we want at any speed we want. We are not allowed to drive on the sidewalks and we are not allowed to disobey the speed limit. Our freedom to do these things is curtailed because other freedoms are deemed more valuable -- the freedom to walk down the street in safety. The GNU project is about spreading software freedom to more people, so this requires a copyright license which doesn't allow anyone to strip away the freedoms of free software. Hence the GNU GPL (the license under which a lot of the GNU project's programs are distributed) has a strong copyleft.
The FSF argues, quite convincingly, that the ability to restrict what others can do with computer programs is a power not a freedom because "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.".
I don't think any free software advocate would object to the use of the new BSD license. Such programs are a gift to everyone, and therein lies the rub. Free software advocates warn against using non-copyleft free software licenses (such as the new BSD license) under most circumstances because doing so has some noteworthy practical problems (like competing against a derivative of one's own code) and because it means treating businesses like charities.
Digital Citizen
On the other hand, with GPL, my rights are infringed for the supposed betterment of society
I think that is a pretty flawed statement, since you don't have ANY rights to use the code, UNLESS it is licensed to you.
If it is not licensed to you, you can either pay a commerciel entity $$$ for a license, or you can use GPL source code, provided you provide the source as well.
No rights of yours are being infringed, since you have no rights to begin with.
Perhaps they would be infringed if you had no choice to beging with...but you can always decide not to use the GPL source code.
As much as I despise socialism...
...this is a load of crap. A truly libertarian philosophy puts sole control of the work in the hands of the person who creates it, to distribute as they please, under whatever license they wish. The GPL is a perfect example of libertarianism: control of the work rests in the hands of creator, and no one else. If you don't like it, you don't use it - that's where *your* choice begins and ends.
GPL maximizes the collective benefit to society at large at the expense of individual liberty. This is, by definition, a socalist philosophy.
That's also libertarian.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
*nod* it's a similar argument to that those of us who are pro gun-control use to argue that weak gun control reduces freedom. Or heavy taxation for that matter. In other words both sides of an argument like that can consider themselves more free than the other side, just looking at different parts of the analysis.
The GPL is an enticement to social responsibility.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Enough Said.
Jeez, dude, those are the only choices? It couldn't possibly be that someone has a different opinion? It couldn't be that someone has carefully considered a different set of criteria for their reasoning and is approaching the problem from a different angle? It couldn't be that, for example, a given pragmatist might reject 'absurd' scenarios in favor of a 'most likely' approach in order to arrive at a well considered, reasonable, logical difference of viewpoint?
No!
It can only be that IF YOU DON'T SEE THIS, YOU'RE BLIND OR IGNORANT.
This is why Stallmanites make me want to puke.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Liberalism is based upon unrestrained trade. It is freedom of contract.
The GPL is a public trade agreement: use of this code in return for code if you publish.
The BSD license has nothing to do with trade, it is a waiver of certain rights, necessary to widely disseminate an idea/piece-of-code.
One is a contract, one is a publication (in nature. They're both contracts, in reality).
The only time socialist philosophy would come into play were if you were compelled to give/assign-rights-to code to another, or if you were compelled to produce code by a central planning group. Neither of these are the case with either license. Not really a socialist/libertarian conflict.
You lost me here.
If I write some software and provide it to society under a BSD-style license, and then some e-e-e-vil corporation uses my software into their commercial product, how is this a cost to society as a whole?
One may argue that the BSD license allows Evil, Inc. to use the software in question without the attendant benefit of reciprocated development. The false assumption here is that the benefit would be realized if the BSD license were replaced with a GPL license.
But I doubt that this would be the case. Without the BSD license, the commercial software developer would license code from somewhere else or develop needed software in-house, avoiding the GPL in any case.
So "society as a whole" doesn't really lose anything in the BSD case. The original BSD-licensed software is still there and still BSD-licensed. So society hasn't lost that. Evil, Inc. is perhaps filling a niche that people may be willing to pay for, so society has gained that as well. Maybe not, depending on your point of view, but it's not a loss in any case.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Nothing ironic about it. It *is* off-topic as it doesn't address the article in any way.
AC wrote: This is why people think the open source "zealots" are so disconnected from reality. They break out the dictionary to nitpick "free". How's that going to help me run my business?? But that is exactly the point of semantics. How can anyone have any meaningful discussion about various subjects, if they use different definitions? If someone was talking about bauds when they really meant bits-per-second, then the discussion would be completely meaningless.
...Microsoft loves the "more free" BSD license (because it gives them the freedom to take the code and do an embrace-and-extend with it).
If you're doing something Microsoft loves, you really should ask yourself if you're doing the right thing.
Hanno
This is completely unprofessional. I don't like some of the lifestyle choices that my neighbour makes, but I don't take to slagging him off in public about it. If GPL is not good for PHP, then so what - GPL is good for other things, but not everything - witness the popularity of the BSD license.
Which code manged to move?
BSD to GPL.
Why?
Because the GPL does not limit the freedom of movement *of the fucking code*. That is why it is called free (libre) software.
Which code could not move? GPL to BSD.
Why?
Because BSD locks down code, limiting its freedom, which diminishess access for further development.
I prefer GPL any time of the day and that is why I exercise my freedom of choice and let the poor BDS sods work for the benefit of the likes of MS without society getting nothing at all in return.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
TCP/IP is a fucking standard, it is documented, before MS relalized you could network computers (several years after Sun, Apple and many others) there were companies and institutions providing TCP/IP capabilities for MS OSes.
By using the BSD MS got a nice TCP/IP implementation and society got nothing for its efforts.
Nics one to pin down to the BSD licensing mindset.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Talk about FUD.
they said it [GPL] means you can't sell your software. That is not FUD, that is fact.
Not true at all, you are perfectly free to sell GPL software but you must make the source code available to the person buying it. You can also do this without allowing them to legally make copies and give them away, using the GPL doesn't mean that copyright law is suddenly voided for that product.
You're also free to give it away and sell support, that isn't the only business model for GPL software though.
TCP/IP was adopted long before Microsoft figured out you could network two computers.
By the time the Internet became more accesible MS had no choice but to put TCP/IP on their OSes. They had no choice, it was that or no Internet at all (which may have killed them).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You present an excellent summary of the previous posting putting it in relation to a socialist or individual term of freedom. However, I have to disagree with you on the notion that GPL can be considered a Socialist license.
While you have the freedom to be an asshole, you do not have the freedom to exercise your assholeness upon others.
You speak entirely in terms of Capitalism and not in the terms of Politicial structures. GPL may be considered not so much Socialist as Libertarian in political nature.
You are asking for a non-inheritable licensing structure. When I create something from a GPL license, the license applies a rule that my code shall inherit this same openness as the code base that I drew from (your source code). This means that while I can draw code from a community of free software, I am not allowed to lock up my derivative work behind closed doors such that it is not free in some/most/all aspects, depending on how I would like to spin it.
You are using a bizarre notion of freedom which is non-transferrable. I do not have the right to remain free and simultaeneously enslave others. The USA decided that in the 1870's
In a commercial sense, you are asking for that same right to be extended into the business community. You are asking for the right to use software from other resources without restrictions or limitations, making you the Free Customer. But then you want to apply a limitation upon your customers that prevent them from seeing anything about your code or using it or modifying it in some/any way. This makes your customers not as free in their exercise of the use of the product as you yourself have benefitted to get to where you are.
What makes the GPL so important is that it reduces software to a commodity which becomes so ubiquitous and easy to acquire that the economy must change it's course to other goods and activities. This is the fundamental cornerstone of so many companies that are using the likes of Debian to provide a Service rather than a Product.
To simply want to take someone elses free software that they have provided and use it for your own profit without extending that offer of free use it really isn't much different from strip mining resources from public land.
I thought "Freedom" was a synonym for "French" these days.
Did you ever hear "embrace and extend"?
Google for it then.
Jeez.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Random case:
I create software that implements a standard, and which needs this standard to be obeyed to be maximally useful (think network). I use BSD license. Evil, Inc. takes the code, extends the standard incompatibly and uses its market power to make its version the default. Adhering to BSD license, its changes remain secret.
Outcome: society as a whole has lost
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
"They are just happy that it's a PHP license and they can do whatever they want with it and can ship it with their commercial products,"
Yes we are... There are always the GPL extremists who believe everything under the sun should be GPL'd but PHP's license is pretty darn flexible... There are a good number of other companies who's license terms probably would be better for picking on.
All the torrents you could want.
Except that GPL stands for General Public License.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"Because they are saying very different things about software and, as a result, they reach different conclusions on some of the most interesting debates about software and how people should be treated."
Ahh but you see here is the rub... Do they know more than I do? Why should I hang on every word they write. Why should I not trust in my own judgement and not follow like a drone. I have read a lot of what they both have to say. Frankly I find ESR to be a selfrightous biggot. Yes I came to that opinon based on a private email I got from him.
RMS is a zelot in the worst sense of the word. He feels that any none GPL'd software is immoral. Lets not go into his OCD about Linux being called GNU Linux. Or the fact that he wastes interviews where he could be a spokesperson for OpenSource with the Linux is not an OS... GNULinux is...
"Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined."
You see this kind of statment just makes me crazy!!! Talk about big brother! What you are saying is that I am not wise enough to decide if I have freedom of choice or not! There really is only one freedom and that is of choice!
"Choice is not bad to have but it is not the heart of either the free software or open source philosophies and choice alone will not bring you the ability to share and modify software."
There is NO freedom without choice! If you claim that FSF is about freedom as in freedom of speech "which I hear all the time" then it has to be choice! frankly the freedom to modify software is not one that I think should even be worried about because under GPL I am not free to modify the license am I? So I am free to only do what the license says I can do. Not any different than any other license. Freedom is that I can use the license I want when I write a program and you can use the one you want. If SCO and Microsoft have there way GPL would be illegal. That is wrong. PHP not using the GPL because they do no like it is freedom.
Freedom is if the FSF does not like the way that PHP is licensed then they can write there own solution.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
In the case of Microsoft versus Kerberos V, Microsoft wrote their own based on the standard. Their version extended the standard. I believe they used "reserved" places in structures for the extensions. The license was not even an issue. If Kerberos V had been GPL'd, it would not have carried any weight. Licenses only go as far as the code goes. They do not protect standards.
:)) companies have the resources to go out on their own and extend a source base very far. These are the ones that can also write all of their code from scratch to avoid any licenses.
Companies that use BSD code (or even the ones that violate the GPL?) usually try to follow the open source version due to economics. Splitting away can cost more in time than trying to stay close to the open source version. Only large (and evil
The license favors him so why would he care? And the people who it doesn't favor should just shut up because they are fanatical?
If I wrote some handy software project but had a license with a clause "...everyone but Bill Gates can use it..." most of the people of the world can would be able to use it and hence its mostly open. However to say that this license is "...is very open..." is a half true. To carry on like its just as good as the GPL is dumb and shows a lack of understanding of the philosophy of the GPL.
People should be free to write whatever they like under what ever license they like. However to say "this license that is nearly as open as the GPL is just as good as the GPL" is wrong. At best, like the BSD license, it is just different (no better or worse) and at worse the license is a tool to make sure they can take some of the advantages of being mostly open yet stroke their ego because they are in absolutely control.
Andi Gutmans just doesn't want someone to come along and make a better PHP. That isn't "very open" or "just as good" as the GPL or BSD.
I am tired of dogmatic pundits arrogantly demanding that programmers use such-and-such a license for their work. Developers used to have the freedom to make their own choice. But those days appear to be long gone. Now anyone not following the religion de jour is persecuted as a heretic.
Perhaps instead of hijacking other people's work, these folks might consider building a competing product instead. Give us options, not rhetoric.
After all, are you a programmer or a politician?
"Ahh but you see here is the rub... Do they know more than I do? Why should I hang on every word they write. Why should I not trust in my own judgement and not follow like a drone."
I don't think anyone is advocating being a drone. However, I know I have to admit that Richard Stallman has taken a lot more time to think about the issues than I have. Sometimes it's best to follow behind a leader, because they have taken more time to be aware of the issues and their implications. Deciding whether you believe in ESR's or RMS's concept of open-source/free software does matter, in that if you agree with them in general, it's probably useful to agree with them in specifics, as they are probably more aware of the implications of those specifics than you are.
I don't think the argument is X or Y _must_ have Z license, but instead "it would be more useful" / "I would like it better" / "it would match my beliefs better" / "I would be more inclined to use it" if it has whatever license.
Philosophical freestyle has some dangers, especially for those who do not have the time to engage in it fully. I do not think that anyone has the time or background to do philosophical freestyle on all subjects, and therefore we often have to look to our leaders to help us out - which is why it is important to have responsible, ethical, insightful people as our leaders.
Engineering and the Ultimate
- Nothing about the GPL deals with the "end user" useage. Use it, don't use it. The GPL has no effect either way. The GPL deals developer and the source used to generate the software.
- There is only one real restriction on anything that is GPL: that any derivitives are as free as the derived works. What is the point of being freely available to everyone if someone else can just remove it at some later date?
- There is nothing about clause 2.B that says you can't sell GPL software. Redhat and IBM make business on selling GPL software. Just make sure the source is available.
You and the parent poster are chumps. I hope for your own sake you eventually get a clue. I am not going to waste my time explaining any of this further... you are free to do as you wish, but I would suggest opening your eyes.
"Philosophical freestyle has some dangers, especially for those who do not have the time to engage in it fully. I do not think that anyone has the time or background to do philosophical freestyle on all subjects, and therefore we often have to look to our leaders to help us out - which is why it is important to have responsible, ethical, insightful people as our leaders."
How do you know if your leader is insightful if you yourself do not understand the subject yourself? In effect leaders are just someone to blame or to reafirm what you already think. "RMS agrees with me and he is brilliant so I must be brilliant also." As far as RMS taking a lot more time to think about these issues than you maybe but then he has his pretty much lived his whole life at the MIT AI lab and has never really had to make a living from writing software. His views tend to be a distorted at best.
"Deciding whether you believe in ESR's or RMS's concept of open-source/free software does matter, in that if you agree with them in general, it's probably useful to agree with them in specifics, as they are probably more aware of the implications of those specifics than you are."
That is called blind faith and is very dangerous.
Frankly I find RMS to be extermly harmful to the Open Source movment in general. ESR less so but I have to say that I just do like him from the personal contact I have had with him.
I am sorry but I follow no man or woman. There are people that I admire for what they have done but for the most part those that do nothing but try and lead scare the living daylights out of me. Those that serve are more to be admired than those that rule.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It all boils down to control. The GPL is an attempt to impose your ethics on other developers, period, end of story. GPL is about controlling your work so it's only used the way you want it to be used; BSD is about relinquishing control and giving your work away to everyone, equally and without restriction.
The telling point into which licence is more free is this: If you include BSD-licenced code in your project you are free to release your project with whatever licence you want -- BSD, GPL, or Commercial. If you include GPL-licenced code in your project, the terms of the GPL dictate that you must release your code under the GPL.
I refuse to develop any software incorporating GPL'ed code because I demand the right to release my enhancements under whatever terms I see fit. Therefore, GPLed code might as well be closed source for all the good it does me. No matter how good it is I cannot touch it because doing so would infect my project and compel me to release MY code under terms which I do not agree with.
My point exactly. Let's say my project has 10,000 lines of code; 7500 lines of which I wrote myself and 2500 of which I copied from other open-source projects. Of the 2500 lines of borrowed code, 500 came from a GPLed project and 2000 came from a BSD project.In this scenerio, I am NOT free to distribute the code I wrote as I please, under whatever license I wish to use. Those 500 lines of GPLed code infect not only the 7500 lines of code I wrote myself, but also the 2000 lines which someone else wrote. The person who wrote the 500 lines of GPL code dictates to the people who wrote the other 9500 lines of code what license they must use. The only "freedom" I have is the freedom to throw those 500 lines of GPL code into the trashcan and waste many hours of my life re-inventing the wheel.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
What RMS means by "Freedom of choice is deceptively attractive because people who focus on choice can easily be undermined" is that, if the local tobacconist's shop sells fifty different kinds of fags but they all give you lung cancer, then you don't really have a choice ..... whichever ones you smoke, you're going to end up the same way.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Libertarianism isn't just about YOUR freedom, it's about EVERYONE's freedom.
No, it isn't. That's the socialist clap-trap that pseudo-liberals are so fond of, the bullshit where they somehow 'enhance' your life by stripping you of your rights and freedoms for the 'greater good'.
Libertarianism recognizes there's no such thing as a 'greater good'. There's only individual good, and all legislation and government powers must be tailored to support and enhance this individual good. Libertarianism does not, under any circumstance, support stripping the rights of individuals for the 'good of everyone'. In fact, this is antithetical to the very basis of libertarianism.
(And before anyone stars making idiot arguments about murder, theft, etc. exercise some brain cells and think about what INDIVIDUAL good actually means.)
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You can take my BSD-licenced project, change one line of code, and release the whole thing under the GPL. I cannot take your GPL-licened project, change one line of code, and release the whole thing under the BSD license. To me, this lack of reciprocity is a bug; to you, it's a feature.
Bullshit. Strip-mining public land damages the enviornment and depletes a finite resource so that others cannot use it. Software is not a finite resource. A more apt analogy would be photographing a public landmark -- taking a picture of the landmark does not damage or deplete it in any way. If the landmark were GPL'ed, you would be forced to give the negatives to anyone who wanted them, whereas if it were BSD'ed you could do whatever you damn well pleased with your negatives. Incorporating free code into a propriatry project does not deplete the body of available free code -- the original code is still free for anyone else to use.Just because you chose give your work away does not give you the right to demand that everyone else give their work away too.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Except no one is forced to use GPL software. If you don't like it, use something else.
That doesn't have anything to do with his point. The point was that if you do use GPL software, GPL is less free because it compels a course of action in order to use it. Other licenses mentioned do not have those restrictions. The GPL is not the free-as-in-speech license it's made out to be.
Fair point.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Glad to hear someone making the distinction between (coercively) open source code and truly free code. Freedom means, simply, not placing restrictions upon others. GPL is not free, it IS open, but it is coercive as well. It is quite different from freedom in any usual sense of the word.
Boys from the City. Not yet caught by the Whirlwind of Progress. Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.
> Hmmm, wouldn't forcing people to be socially responsible make you an asshole?
No, it would not. This is one of many reasons why I think of Libertarians as selfishly stupid, just like naive strategies for the repeated prisoner's dillema... (always choosing "mean," even though you're both losing out, instead of a smart trigger strategy like tit for tat).
Altering the GPL so that instead of preventing you from using it commercially like the BSD license, it would grant very similar freedoms to the BSD license. Only at the same time it would prevent this "companies see it as charity" bullspit by placing only three restrictions on use of the software:
:P)
1. Give credit where credit is due. (Duh
2. Have the same restriction as the GPL only modified somewhat... instead of requiring that all copies of the software you distribute retain the same license. Require only that any modifications/derivitives you make have to be made available under the terms of the same license ONLY to the author/group that created the original software BEFORE they release it. This would enable BSD freedom while still making sure that the open source community doesn't lose out.
3. Require that rights to patents are released to the original author/group when sending the required modifications back to the original author/group.
I am currently about two-thirds through the Two Towers. I just passed that point in the book. :)
GPLland is operating under the mistaken belief that source code is a God-given right.
Actually, yes it is. Not so much source code per se, but the ability to redistribute and modify software is a natural right. Source code just goes with it, as it's virtually impossible to modify software if you don't have the source code.
Furthermore, writing proprietary software is immoral. Anything that infringes on the freedom of others is immoral. True, it's not as immoral is murder or rape, but it's still immoral. Burglary isn't as immoral as murder or rape, but it's still immoral.
Knowingly enabling someone to commit an immorality makes you just as immoral as the first person. If you give or sell a gun to someone who you know is planning to commit murder, you're just as culpable and immoral.
Or, for something less ghastly than murder: let's say you're the sole night watchman at a store, but not the owner, and you have a friend who's a thief and wants to rob the store. You want to help him out, so on the night he intends to rob the store, you unlock all the doors, and shut down all the cameras and alarms. He walks in, starts putting some of the store's more expensive items in his bag, you do nothing, and he walks out with his bag. You're just as culpable and immoral as your friend.
Going back to software--again, writing proprietary software is immoral. Writing software licensed in a way that it will help other people to write proprietary software makes you just as immoral. Sure, they can still do it themselves if your code is GPL: they can pirate it, find a similar library, or just write the library they want from scratch. But they're not getting any help from you.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
One analogy can explain it quite clearly IMO:
Think of the GPL and BSD licenses as P2P apps. One of them forces you to share the files you're downloading (think Bittorrent) in order to benefit the entire community wether you like it or not, while the other lets you decide what to do, including turning off sharing while you leech away (Kazaa, Napster), something which most people in those communities tend to do.
Just because Kazaa is more free in the literal sense doesn't mean it's a better choice. One look at the Bittorrent and Kazaa communities and it becomes obvious which one is more advantageous.
It's still GPL incompatible.
1-3 haven't substantially changed, 4 is wholly incompatible because it adds restrictions, 5 is irrelevant and NULL, and 6 is incompatible because it adds restrictions.
The Zend stuff is gone, but they replaced it with this new thing about not including the letters "PHP" in your name, and as far as that goes they can blow me. If I develop a PHP program and want to call it "PHPGoFuckYourself", I'll do so and they can deal with it.
Others have already addressed much of what you write, so I'll spend time on some other parts.
Please cite a source which shows RMS saying that non-GPL'd software is immoral. RMS says that non-free software is immoral (and he makes a case for this, he does not let the statement hang without justification; the entire story of free software speech he's given on numerous occassions lay out his argument). There are many free software licenses besides the GNU General Public License.
Why not? Because we might discover that it is not obsessive compulsive disorder at all but actually a request aimed at giving credit where credit is due? Or debunking the idea that it is a self-promotional ego trip (nobody is asking you to call the system "Stallmanix" or somesuch)? Or requesting but not requiring that GNU get a share of the credit being given to Linus Torvalds (who is apparently unwilling to correct people who give him credit for work he did not do)?
He has taken many opportunities to tell people in no uncertain terms that he is not a member of the open source movement and he does not represent that movement. One of them appears in the essay where he lays out the differences between the two movements. He has also written to Dr. Dobb's magazine and spoken on this issue at the moment the misunderstanding occurred.
Digital Citizen
Writing proprietary software is every bit as immoral as working on the sabbath, smoking hash, and oral sex. In other words, certain closed-minded fanaticals get very worked up about it and try to bend everybody on the planet to their own personal belief system. Most people, thankfully, just live and let live.
Let's leave religion in the churches, hm?
Very true.
You think the 200+ developers of PHP all gonna agree to buy some proprietry compiler?
Bacon in the sky.
And this is not libertarian... how, exactly?
So as I see it, you are complaining that you are not free to distribute someone else's work under whatever terms you please. How is this not libertarian?
What you want is a library of code that you can use as you see fit. By all means go ahead and write some. Compete with GPL'd code in a free market. But don't whinge that GPL developers are not giving you a free ride, because libertarianism teaches that they don't owe you one.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
No you are not. You are forced to release the whole work under the GPL. You can release the 95%, on its own, under any licence you like.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Only if you believe that for some reason society as a whole is worse off with a "secret" standard that they can buy and use as they wish. I think society is BETTER off because of it. The example you cite has actually occurred several times over in one form or another (Microsoft, DEC, IBM come to mind) and every time the result has been industry growth, jobs, and profit for the companies that put food on your table and mine.
You are confusing the point between exersizing your individual rights in a libertarian manner, and chosing a licence which promotes libertarian ideals. Chosing GPL is a libertarian decision, in the respect that it's all about YOUR freedom and YOUR ideals. Chosing BSD promotes libertarian ideals because it's about giving OTHER INDIVIDUALS freedom too.
By your argument, a Microsoft EULA is libertarian license too, because the writer of the software has every right to release it under any licence he sees fit. Certianly a libertarian is free to chose any license he wants for his software. That's not the point. The point is what licence grants OTHER PEOPLE the maximum amount of freedom, and on that point GPL is clearly the loser.
The general philosophy underlying OSS is "don't be a selfish bastard". GPL is less selfish than a commercial licence, but it still still embodies selfish motives.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Of course you do have the freedom to not smoke. Just as you have the freedom to write what ever program you want for your own use.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The licence which best promotes libertarian ideals is precisely that which gets the effect that you want without the initiation of force. The GPL does precisely that. So does the BSD licence. So does the QPL.
A Microsoft EULA isn't actually a licence, because accepting it requires that you voluntarily waive certain rights, such as the right to reverse engineer for compatibility. Open Source licences do not require voluntarily waiving any rights.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There is no lack of "safe[ty]" in a strong copyleft and the history of non-copyleft free software licenses has been remarkably one way. Furthermore, it is not the job of society to make life "safe" for business. If a business wants to participate with the free software community, there is nothing wrong with getting them to do so as equals or rejecting their software entirely.
The warnings I spoke of apply to businesses as they do to individuals (which is why you see so few businesses licensing their own software under non-copyleft free software licenses). So even along the business-first logic you use, your explanation doesn't work. If what you are saying were true, you would see businesses being charitable by licensing their software under non-copylefted free software licenses. Instead we see some of the world's largest businesses licensing their software under the GPL because they want to make sure that their competitors don't take advantage of their code by distributing proprietary derivatives. If they don't GPL their code, they often make their own licenses which aren't anywhere near the charitable contribution that the new BSD license is.
Not long ago, Bill Gates visited the university near where I live and spoke to the Engineering students there including taking questions from the audience. He said that the GNU GPL was an inappropriate choice of license for an educational institution to release software under. Later, in the same response, he said that he thought "the BSD license" (there are more than one, but it was understood that he was talking about the new BSD license without the advertising clause) was appropriate. What he wasn't telling the audience was why he disliked the GPL so much. He dislikes it because, unlike the new BSD license, the GNU GPL does not allow Microsoft to build on the software and distribute proprietary derivatives. Microsoft would love to be able to do this so they can take advantage of the GPL commons without having to contribute their changes.
The distinction you draw between libraries and applications is sophistry ultimately aimed at arranging free labor for business; rearranging social priorities so the public thinks of business desires first. This is very much in line with the open source movement and points to one of the biggest philosophical differences between the open source and free software movements; I'll address this in a moment.
There are times when it is strategically wise to use a weak copylefted license (like the LGPL) or a non-copyleft license (like the new BSD license). But if one wants to avoid the practical problems I described in an earlier post in this thread, one learns that those times are rare. Suffice it to say that if anyone or any organization doesn't like the terms of the GNU GPL (most likely because they don't want to share their published changes and help build the community they receive so much value from), they can write their own code or license code from those willing to contribute it to them as a gift. Nobody owes you or any organization code.
Everyone is already able to contribute to GPL'd software and they are doing so as we speak.
Finally, I am not an "open source advocate" and neither are the authors of the GNU GPL (which, ironically, is still mistakenly cited as an "open source license" even though it was written years before that movement existed and, accordingly, doesn't discuss open source goals at all). The free software movement is not anti-business, it is anti-proprietary software. Some licenses allow proprietary derivatives and others don't. Fortunately, the FSF identifies them and writes about them in their license list. The FSF's concept of "copyleft" is invaluable in assisting that effort.
Digital Citizen
Exactly ..... the choice is not between different means to the same end {fifty kinds of cigarettes which all give you cancer} but between different ends {dying of cancer or not}. So it is with software: the choice is whether to prop up the evil closed-source industry {and BTW, "piracy" doesn't hurt the big players such as Microsoft and Adobe; they can well afford it} or not. It's the end that counts -- the means by which that end is attained is a mere diversion. A choice of different means to the same end is not at all the same thing as a choice of different ends.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Closed source is not evil. Closed source software companies do not kill, torture, rape, or steal. :)
Your right that if you do not want to buy a program you should have the right to make it yourself. But having the option of buying a program is not evil. The option of closing your source if you have not used any Open source software in your program is also not evil.
Like I said if you do not like it write it yourself. The world will never be all open source. Just as the world will never be all closed source. There will be a balance as in all things. But declaring all closed source developers evil is as STUPID as Microsoft calling open source unamerican!
Tell you what Start boycotting ID since they have not open sourced Doom3
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
"Yes it is. If you write a piece of software, it belongs to everyone. If you give less than everyone access to it, then you are depriving some people of access to some of the fruits of human endeavour."
.uk address. That is rich coming from a country that sold petrol with lead in it for more than 10 years after is was band in the US and is living large chargeing huge amounts of money for the oil that it is sucking out of the North Sea.
Ummm. No it is not. No more than if I grow food, build a house, or write a book. A person has a right to own what he creates. To do with it as he choses. The lovely anti-american rant aside. Since I do not own a gun, drink any beer, never lived in a trailer. I will give your comments all the value they diserve. As to the polluteing the enviroment and your
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
PHP is not Free software.
And by the way, lead is a lot less harmful than what they put in petrol in its place
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!