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.
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.
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
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/
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.
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.
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.
> The GPL is very clear
Umm have you every tried to read the GPL?
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.
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
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!
I repeat: READ THE GPL BEFORE COMMENTING ABOUT IT!!!
the grandparent wasn't talking about overuse of acronyms, but about not knowing what the acronyms mean.
ATM = Automatic Teller Machine
PIN = Personal Identification Number
so saying "ATM machine to type in my PIN number" is incorrect repetition just like "GPL licence" (GNU Public Licence licence)
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.
Here is the PHP license:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Viral clause! Just like GPL. Score 1 for PHP, and 1 for GPL.
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.
Another viral clause! I think it can be combined with the first though, very similar. But it means you can distribute binaries without having to distribute the source code (unlike GPL) Score: PHP 2, GPL 1.
3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior permission from the PHP Group. This does not apply to add-on libraries or tools that work in conjunction with PHP. In such a case the PHP name may be used to indicate that the product supports PHP.
Trademark restriction! The GPL *does not* have such a restriction. Score one for GPL (PHP:2 GPL:2).
4. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the license from time to time...[snip] No one other than the PHP Group has the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
"You may use this version or any later version", combined with "you may not change the license" GPL has this too, one point each: (PHP:3, GPL:3).
5. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following acknowledgment: "This product includes PHP, freely available from http://www.php.net/".
Uh-oh, another requirement that the GPL doesn't have. Score one for GPL (PHP:3, GPL:4).
6. The software incorporates the Zend Engine, a product of Zend Technologies, Ltd. ("Zend"). The Zend Engine is licensed to the PHP Association (pursuant to a grant from Zend that can be found at http://www.php.net/license/ZendGrant/) for distribution to you under this license agreement, only as a part of PHP. In the event that you separate the Zend Engine (or any portion thereof) from the rest of the software, or modify the Zend Engine, or any portion thereof, your use of the separated or modified Zend Engine software shall not be governed by this license, and instead shall be governed by the license set forth at http://www.zend.com/license/ZendLicense/.
Interesting, a mutating trap-door license.. if you change the code, in some circumstances you may need to *change license* too! Ouch! Incorporating text of another license by reference! Ouch ouch! Score two for GPL. (PHP:3, GPL:6).
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE PHP DEVELOPMENT TEAM ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, [snip]
Yup, everybody has this.
So, the license is viral, doesn't allow changing the license (but is non-copyleft because it doesn't require source code), and has restrictions that the GPL doesn't have... tell me again why this is a *better* license than the GPL?
It's funny to see so many people sticking up for this license, just to get a dig in at RMS.
It is interesting. Not the post in itself but the question it poses. Obviously the poser is not the only one who don't feel like spending a couple of hours going through a text you're not trained to understand
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.
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.
If such a disaster befell the FSF, it still wouldn't be easy to revoke the rights of all downstream recipients. All of those projects would immediately fork and the corrupt version of the projects would have zero street cred. What happened with XFree86 was nowhere near as evil but it does illustrate what the reaction to disagreeable licensing by evil new owners will be.
There so much FSF code that most of it wouldn't be worth jack shit if it lost its maintainers. The only real booty would be what the usurpers could maintain and release themselves. There would be a shitload of admins and end users who wouldn't touch those versions with a 10,000 foot pole. Screwing with the FSF in that way would be a waste of your hypothetical half a billion dollars.
So, the license is viral, doesn't allow changing the license (but is non-copyleft because it doesn't require source code), and has restrictions that the GPL doesn't have... tell me again why this is a *better* license than the GPL?
You forgot the clause where the GPL forces you to release YOUR source code under the GPL if you use the GPL'd code. From your analysis above, PHP doesn't do that. And that's a bigger reason than every single one you listed.
Nice try though.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I agree that it is restrictive. It is your freedom to use it or not. It is your freedom to buy something else to use in your product.
You could use something which is LGPL where the "library" portion must be disclosed but the rest of your application may be closed.
It is the choice of person that wrote the software how they want to use it. This is their freedom when they work on something, as they could have easily made you pay for it. They in return would like you to develop open software for the masses, your choice to have freedom to distribute or to make money off the back of others without payment.
If the license is no good for your product then it does not matter who developed it you must pass it by and find another. This may be proprietary or open source.
So, basically, although PHP didn't change it's license, and someone else did, some people are implying that it's PHP's fault for having an incompatible license.
Yeah, right.
Don't know about you, but it's the project that picks the license. If it broke, maybe MySQL shouldn't have gone and changed their license, thus creating the problem. It is not PHP's responsibility to be held accountable for what MySQL or any other project does.
So now that Stallman thinks he has some level of influence because of the GPL, he's going to wag his finger and point to PHP as a prime example of what can happen, and the GPL masses, stupid as they can be sometimes, will say "Yes, look at this case, it's happened before." Drop the R, and I'd really think we were talking about MS FUD.
Know what? This simply makes me stay away from GPL stuff even more. Glad I'm a BSDer, even though they are not immune to license changes creating conflict (e.g. IPF with OBSD).
You miss the point. The GPL is not about the end user's freedom, it's about keeping the code free.
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"?
Bingo. And that kind of closed source tapping the development of open source, then taking it away from them for proprietary profit and breaking its interoperability with open source tools is quite common. It's what SCO did in developing their latest rounds of products, and Microsoft did with Kerberos, and half-a-dozen vendors do with VNC, etc., etc.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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!)
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.
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
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?
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
You are missing the point, or possibly phrasing yours badly.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from selling derivative works. However, for every person you sell the compiled version of that code to, you must also make the source available, under the terms of the GPL. Which means, yes, they could redistribute your code, and you might theoretically make no more profit out of it after your first sale.
So, what you're actually complaining about is the GPL restricts your freedom to use other people's hard work to save you time and money, add a little bit of your own code, and then sell the result, keeping the source to yourself and giving nothing back to the people on whose shoulders you stood.
Yes, the GPL restricts the freedom of the few to be parasites, so that the many gain other freedoms. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my face.
It's a pretty good trade-off, don't you think?
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
...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