Slashdot Mirror
Linus Loves GPL, But Hates GPL Lawsuits (cio.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader sfcrazy writes: During LinuxCon, Torvalds was full of praise for GNU GPL: "The GPL ensures that nobody is ever going to take advantage of your code. It will remain free and nobody can take that away from you. I think that's a big deal for community management... FSF [Free Software Foundation] and I don't have a loving relationship, but I love GPL v2. I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint."
And he thinks the BSD license is bad for everyone: "Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about," Torvalds said.
But Linus also addressed the issue of enforcing the GPL on the Linux foundation mailing list when someone proposed a discussion of it at Linuxcon. "I think the whole GPL enforcement issue is absolutely something that should be discussed, but it should be discussed with the working title 'Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects'... quite apart from the risk of loss in a court, the real risk is something that happens whether you win or lose, and in fact whether you go to court or just threaten: the loss of community, and in particular exactly the kind of community that can (and does) help. You lose your friends."
And he thinks the BSD license is bad for everyone: "Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about," Torvalds said.
But Linus also addressed the issue of enforcing the GPL on the Linux foundation mailing list when someone proposed a discussion of it at Linuxcon. "I think the whole GPL enforcement issue is absolutely something that should be discussed, but it should be discussed with the working title 'Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects'... quite apart from the risk of loss in a court, the real risk is something that happens whether you win or lose, and in fact whether you go to court or just threaten: the loss of community, and in particular exactly the kind of community that can (and does) help. You lose your friends."
Put them in stocks in the public square, and throw rotten fruit at them.
You can do whatever you want with your code. Linus just thinks that the BSD license is only good for code you don't care about... but, dude, that's, like, just his opinion, man.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
How does GPLv2 fit the web server world? Imagine you have a JS library licensed under GPLv2; what will be the implications of using such for the rest of the site's code? I imagine I could use my own GPLv2'd code without much concern, but if anyone else used it, they'd, in principle, have to open up their whole code base after that.
Or that might not be the case. But then again that *is* the problem as nobody really knows how it works in normal circumstances. Going with BSD is simple because it's a very, very easy license to understand. You just slap it on your code and it can be used in pretty much any way anybody wants without giving it too much thought. Just mention the original author(s) somewhere in your application and everything's fine.
-SR
...is that it doesn't really care about freedom. You can't have freedom if there's a "but only if..." attached to it, which is the whole premise of GPL. It puts all the trust in the world to the end-user of software (the freedom to always get software for free), but no trust at all in the developers of software (no freedom to use or incorporate the software unless you submit to the GPL and turn all of your own work into the same). GPL happily slurps up almost all other licenses, but through its stubborn nature it itself does not give anything back. The amount of software "taken" from BSD into GPL is vast, but the opposite is so thin you can get a paper cut from it. "Of course you get software back, but only if you think, say and act like GPL wants you to" isn't what freedom is about.
I have always preferred permissive licenses like MIT and BSD. However, Linus has created the world's most successful open-source software, so perhaps it's worth considering how the license has helped shape the software and its supporting community.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
In no way is it any statement of what he think's of your code. You're being overly narcissistic here.
I think if you want to build an empire around your projects, that BSD is probably not the best way to go. It's too easy for anyone to setup a business and overshadow your contributions. (it's why the wine project switch to GPL)
I tend to use ISC, MIT, or BSD myself. But I'm not looking to be the be in charge of the next Linux, GIMP, GTK, etc.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
then soon every greedy capitalist in the software industry would be scalping code and using it in their products and selling it for top dollar and without releasing the source code, people like microsoft, apple, google, oracle, etc... they would all be raping your code for profits if the threat of litigation did not hang over their heads
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Each open source license has its goals and principles, and none is "bad" or "evil" from itself.
The reason the GPL (or any other licence) is enforced, is specifically to try and exclude people.
Every community has rules and responsibilities it places on its members, if there are people or groups that actively work against the interests of the community, then they should be excluded.
The well defined expectations set out by the FSF (4 freedoms) are what define the community, and what separates it from BSD crowd, whos community has not grown to the same extent.
There is an community around the GPL specifically because it is enforced.
If the GPL (or any other licence) isnt enforced it becomes in practice a permissive licence, much like the BSD, no values, no community.
The point of the GPL is to make the code free, not the coders. When starting, you're free to choose the GPL or not, and thus the GPL never revokes that initial freedom from you. GPL code can never be reverted to a less free state, whereas code under other licenses, such as BSD, can.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
The GPL ensures that nobody is ever going to take advantage of your code.
Is that like how laws against murder ensure that no-one ever gets murdered?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I also favor the GPL (or AGPL), for reasons others have explained here. But I read once somewhere(?) that the BSD license can be more useful in the limited case of promoting use of a protocol (or maybe to enable higher-quality use of the protocol). I'd be interested in others' perspectives on that, from those who normally prefer the GPL/AGPL. Especially if you know of examples.
A Free, fast personal organizer for touch typists: onemodel
Yup, it's his [incorrect] opinion of how I think about my code. :)
ROTFL. That's your opinion.
That was the result of a court verdict. We're trying to avoid the lawyers here.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And this valid experience obviously colored Torvalds' worldview.
Linux showed that the benefits of a common foundation far outweighed the marginal dollars lost from lock-in. So much so that if you waved a magic wand and got rid of the GPL restrictions, you'd still have everybody and his brother trying to push changes upstream. Because it's a hell of a lot easier to accept new version of code if you don't have to keep merging your customizations.
... unless you can, and do, enforce it.
How does that "sue you for it" work?
How do you get from "I think this is bad" to "stop telling me what to do"?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Citation please?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If you actually wrote it entirely yourself, none. If it's a derivative work, however, Torvalds has the same rights as any copyright holder would over derivative works from their stuff... you need the original copyright holder's permission first. The GPL really only outlines what the requirements are to *get* such permission so that no other explicit written permission is necessary, which is what would typically be otherwise required to independently create a derivative work of somone else's copyrighted stuff.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They aren't. They are concerned about derivative works of THEIR OWN code, concerns that they are legally entitled to have by virtue of having the copyright on the code that they wrote. The fact that a derivative work might have your own code in it is entirely superfluous, if it is a derivative work then you still need the original copyright holder's permission to do something with it. The GPL outlines the terms necessary to receive such permission. Nothing more, and nothing less.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Or a close equivalent thereof.
I don't understand... did he say anything about your code and what you should do with it? You must be really awesome at interpreting work orders.
There are variants for v2/v3 (the v2 one may be GPL v1.5, read up on the history of it to be sure.)
The Affero GPL closes most remaining loopholes in the normal GPLv2/v3 by making clients of any systems using AGPL'd software responsible for distributing changes to their software to any users of their service as well as any third parties to whom they provide binary copies of the software.
This basically eliminates the proprietization of GPL'd source code for SaaS backends by ensuring that you are still required to provide the software to end users of the service, thereby eliminating the chance of the service being shut down and the changes done on its behalf being lost.
Some people may disagree with the reasoning behind that, but they can always use an APSL/MIT/BSD/proprietarily licensed set of backend software instead of AGPL'd software and pay for it in other ways than releasing their code.
He's talking about Linux as the KERNEL, genius. You know, since it's what he WORKS ON.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code
You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
It's more of a theoretical concern than a real one, but there are some possibilities.
Their source is closed and yours is open. They make changes and you make changes. You can't see their changes, but they can definitely see your changes. If they may a certain change first, and they see you make a subsequent change that looks remarkably similar to their changes, they can take you to court for possibly stealing their code.
And before you come back saying "oh, but that will never fly in court" - you would be forgetting that, especially in the US system, it doesn't need to. They just need to make the claim and if you're a small time developer, you cannot afford the legal fees, so you settle.
So far, that hasn't happened. Although out of court settlements often forbid you from talking about it, so maybe we just can't hear about it happening.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
We're not talking about rights. we're talking about freedom.
Not having the freedom to put graffiti on your fence is less freedom. Obviously I don't have the right to do such a thing, but it is a reduction of my freedom. (hopefully that analogy helps you understand the difference between a right and a freedom)
Now that is out of the way. If I cannot incorporate your code into my project without changing my license to match yours, then I have less freedom. (you can use the physical sense of the word, as in degrees of freedom, if that helps you understand.). You failed to grant me the right to do as I please with your code. Instead of a gift, you have shared something you made with some strings attached.
That's fine. I don't blame you for not giving me gifts. But my code is a gift to you. I expect nothing in return, I do not expect you to reciprocate and carry on with the gift-giving. I only hope that it brings you some happiness or ease in your life. If my code saves you an hour of work on a project, an hour you could spend with your family, then that is really the highest measure of success in my opinion.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Just as we come closer to ensuring no murders when we enforce laws against murder, we come closer to ensuring the software freedom described in the GPL when we enforce the GPL.
It's telling that Linus Torvalds said "I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint." and hates enforcement ("Lawyers: poisonous to openness..."). The fork of the Linux kernel Torvalds distributes contains the "fragmentation" he claims isn't viable—Torvalds' variant of Linux contains proprietary binaries in it. These blobs of code are removed in the fully-free GNU Linux-libre kernel.
Linus Torvalds' position is more easily understood when you consider that Torvalds is a fan of the right-wing, proprietor-friendly open source movement which is a reaction to the older free software movement. The difference between the two movements has been described in writing (older essay, newer essay) and in every RMS speech for years.
You can see that difference playing out in Linus Torvalds' dig against GPL enforcement. Brad Kuhn, President and Distinguished Technologist of the Software Freedom Conservancy talked about the value of GPL enforcement in his most recent talk on the issue at linux.conf.au in 2016 in his talk "Copyleft For the Next Decade: A Comprehensive Plan", "Copyleft is not magic pixie dust; you don't sprinkle it on some code and then suddenly your code is liberated forever. I wish that were true but that's not how the world works." (9m2s). The way Torvalds talks about the GPLv2 you'd think the GPLv2 were magic pixie dust because that's what he wants Linux kernel copyright holders to believe—an unenforced GPL is fine—because Torvalds, like any good sycophant for proprietary software, knows what Kuhn reminds us of in Kuhn's talk, (around 13m1s), "If a copyleft license is not enforced it's indistinguishable from a non-copylefted license in practice.". But where Torvalds takes that as an instruction to not act in defense of the GPL, Kuhn says that as a warning against software proprietarism. Conservancy is the group doing that enforcement work to help assure all computer users actually get the freedoms of free software the GPL describes. That work includes GPL enforcement, specifically a coordinated compliance effort across multiple Conservancy projects.
Digital Citizen
quite apart from the risk of loss in a court, the real risk is something that happens whether you win or lose, and in fact whether you go to court or just threaten: the loss of community, and in particular exactly the kind of community that can (and does) help. You lose your friends."
Lawsuits always create divisions and force people to take sides. It can be really fun. But it's also probably something you shouldn't do to colleagues and friends because computer science is a small world.
It sounds very, VERY theoretical. Particularly since they'd have to show that YOU had access to THEIR work. Not to mention why are they bothering to track the people whose work they are using in order to sue them? It's a bit like saying that every 60 million years a killer asteroid shows up, so we better spend our days looking up at the sky, just in case. There are more worthwhile things to worry about.
There's no reason why the GPL needs to have that heavy handed clause forcing people to license their code via the GPL.
Yes there is. It allows the project to live long past any one developer's interest in it. If each piece of code was licensed differently, it would be an unmanageable disaster (eg android), especially if the developer chose a closed license. GPLv2 ensures that all code associated with the project remains open source and available to anyone who uses the software.
License it how you like. If you want it included in the kernel, you'll have to license that submission with GPLv2. As the copyright remains with you, you can choose to multilicense it as much as you like.
That's debatable, considering the amount of BSD source code that has made its way into both open AND closed source projects. For example, the BSD TCP/IP networking stack.
Actually, it only directly implies that people who use BSD licensing think less about derivative works from their code than people who use the GPL. This is perfectly fine, but since derivative works would typically contain substantial portions of the original code, by extension, the lack of care about derivative works of their ccde thereby reduces to a lack of care about their own code, from that perspective.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
People DO spend their days looking up at the sky just in case.
You missed the point about the American system. They can have the flimsiest of cases but they can still threaten to bankrupt you without trying to win.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Once upon a time I asked the x264 people if I could ship the x264 installer inside a bundle of software I was selling.
note: I didnt ship it, I politely asked if that would be ok.
The answer I got back was, in short 'That makes your whole system GPL, please give us your details so we can pass them to our lawyers'
Now, I thought that was a little crazy, so, again, I politely asked why they thought that would apply if I did ship their installer.
'You have linked our code as a core part of your system, therefore you are a derivative system, send us your details immediately!'
Again, I asked 'that seems very odd, I certainly wont be using your system at all, however could you please tell me why you think that a piece
of software that the end user will install, that is only accessed through windows Directshow standard interfaces would make my software derivative?'
I was told to direct that question to my own lawyers, since 'they do not provide free legal advice', and again asked to provide my details to THEIR lawyers.
Needless to say, I never, ever, EVER used x264, or recommended it to my users.
The only reason I was asking to include it was to save them downloading it if they needed to read those particular video formats - and had exactly
zero intention of making any changes at all (of course, I was intending to distribute an exact normal distribution)
Sad really, and completely unnecessary.
Funnily enough I heard from others that the x264 people consider providing users with a button that automatically DOWNLOADS the same installer and runs
'no problem', and that they didnt consider x264 libraries in linux distributions being used by a plethora of other software to legally taint those with GPL
requirements, but they considered any shipping of an installer on windows as one.. hmmm.
I hope they enjoyed their power trip - but it just wasnt worth the legal battle/risk. I wonder if all the x264 contributors realised their contributions
were being used as a political hammer in such a way.
If I was building a Tivo today I'd probably start with a BSD license. It's what Sony did with the PlayStation 4.
Having actually seen that done, both with Linux and FreeBSD (as operating systems in routers), I can tell you a) that I would choose Linux every time and that b) the reason is the license and the lawyers.
For the first year or so you will be concentrating on adding features. Making things you probably benefit from keeping private. With Linux you make these in user space which might occasionally make things more difficult. You will eventually want to add some low level functionality and add it to the kernel.
At the point you start low level work, if you used a BSD licensed kernel, there will be a discussion between lawyers and management and likely you end up keeping your functionality private a) because you can and b) because your competition might use it otherwise. If you have a GPL licensed kernel, you will likely decide to publish and push upstream a) because the license pushes you to and b) because even if your competition uses it you will get the benefit back.
After some time, if you don't contribute upstream, you will find that you have incompatibilities with new software versions and you will stick to a stable version. Eventually you will stop benefiting from the evolution of the upstream software. Long term this is a nightmare for the developers. You lose a tiny bit by being "forced" to contribute back. You actually gain a huge amount back from the community because they continue working on your software.
This has happened often; commercial derivatives of BSD operating systems either fork completely or die. 386BSD, JunOS, OSX, IPSO etc. etc. It's very hard to do long term commercial contributions into a complex BSD environment because technically you are giving away shareholder value with no visible recompense.
He is talking about code connected with his project. As far as yours goes all he is saying is "it worked for me" - he's not telling you to do anything one way or another.
It sort of was theoretical until Darl McBride and his lawyer brother decided to use that premise to funnel as much money out of SCO as they could by pretending that code from linux was stolen from SCO and that IBM was financially responsible. Of course they lost, destroying SCO completely, but the legal fees were spectacular leaving them very wealthy perpetrators of a two man scam.
"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD".
Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as closed-source is.
It's just everyone who's a fan of the GPL doesn't want you know about it. Even RMS always digs at BSD as "close source theft! closed source theft!" without a thought that "open source GPL lockout!" applies just as well in digs at BSD code. So yes, GPL "openness" can be just as guilty of "locking up" BSD code as a company like Microsoft or Apple can. But you'll never hear a GPL fanboy admit that, because the whole "evilness" of BSD is locking up, and that only happens in the closed source world, right? Of course, it also ruins the whole "open source" and "free source" concept when the very license that is supposed to provide it (GPL), exploits the very thing it's against (locking up source code).
In short,anyone claiming BSD sucks over GPL because of locking up code is a hypocrite, because GPL locks up BSD code just as well as closed-source licenses do.
As for GPL enforcement, well, it's the same as when a company enforces copyright on someone who downloaded songs, movies, TV, or software. You can't really be "for" GPL enforcement and "against" movie/music/tv/software copyright enforcement, because they're actually one and the same. You can't enforce the GPL without copyright, and you can't really be for prosecuting GPL offenders without having all other IP vendors (and groups like the RIAA and MPAA) also prosecuting copyright offenses. Perhaps that's why Linus hates GPL enforcement, because put another way, it's like the music/movie/software industry suing people as well. It's the same concept - if you don't accept the GPL, you accept default all rights reserved copyright, so a GPL violation is a copyright violation, or piracy. But so is download music you don't own, movies you don't own, software (non-free) you don't own, etc.
...no two flavors of linux run the same kernel let alone have a compatible ABI.
But they all have compilers.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD". Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as closed-source is.
What utter nonsense. Think about the scenario I outlined for a second. If they (the GPLd project) sees that you've made a change to your BSDd code that looks like theirs... that means they already HAVE YOUR CODE. Why would they then "sue" for copyright infringement when, for all intents and purposes, they were able to get their code back, from their point of view?
In short,anyone claiming BSD sucks over GPL because of locking up code is a hypocrite, because GPL locks up BSD code just as well as closed-source licenses do.
How does GPL lock up the code when you can ACQUIRE THE CODE? The point of GPL over closed source is that you can't SEE the closed source. Don't equivocate between the two when there are CLEAR differences.
Perhaps that's why Linus hates GPL enforcement
Or how about reading what he actually wrote and not just the loaded Slashdot summary of the article, which in itself is an incomplete summary of what he said in the mailing list?
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
The only extra restriction the GPL has over BSD is "you can't add more restrictions to this code". Saying BSD is more free than GPL is a bit like saying anarchy is more free than democracy because you can imprison/enslave whoever you like. In practice you end up being less free with anarchy.
Well I have no idea what that's about. There's no minimum quality bar for GPLed code; go for it.
Because it affects everyone, or perhaps more to the point it affects them a lot more than it affects you (because you can always do whatever you like with your own code).
Ultimately it's your call, of course. It would just be nice if your call contributed to the network effects of open-and-will-stay-open code.
So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code
You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.
No, really. I was talking to Linus just the other day over latte's and scones, (such an eclectic fellow our lad is) and he was telling me, "There's this fucking programmer that goes by QuietLagoon, and I can't stand that damned idiot. Always fucking disagreeing with me, and piss on that" (oh, our salty tongued lad, that Linus is)
But he closed with saying "I know this fucking QuietLagoon and his ways. I'll be watching that bastard, because this is personal between me and the him."
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Some people love the BSD license. Some people love the proprietary licenses. I understand that. If you want to make a program and you want to feed your kids, it makes a lot of sense to have a proprietary license and sell binaries. I think it makes less sense today, but I really understand the argument. I don't want to judge. I'm just giving my view on licensing."
Elen sìla lùmenn' omentielvo
But BSDL allows you to mix and match BSDL licensed code w/ code of any other license - be it GPL, CDDL, QPL, Apache, et al - even Proprietary. If you are the software developer, you already have the choice of taking the code of the functionality you don't want to release, and make that part of it downright proprietary. Heck, that's what Apple did - while XNU and the lower level layers are open sourced, Quartz is proprietary: when was the last time you saw Quartz source code anywhere outside Cupertino?
I don't see how the GPL forces you to push your contributions upstream. Let's say you did a driver for a trackpad and put it under GPLv3. Since you're distributing it, anybody who gets the software also gets either the code itself on the CD, or a website where to look it up, or download it from. However, upstream, the people whose project you originally used are free to ignore it. Also, if you have a policy of, say, selling your software for something other than $0.00, and upstream did not buy it, they don't get to see your code. That only has to be shown to people who got your software. Also, GPL doesn't allow you to mix GPL and proprietary software. That's a part of the blowup b/w FSF and Debian, just due to the latter telling people where to find non-free software that worked w/ their products.
Also, the upstream argument is something that's been compellingly disproven in the case of BSD. A lot of projects use FreeBSD as their platform, and don't have to 'give back'. However, in order to avoid making the same changes to every iteration of the OS, companies like Apple, Juniper, Sony, et al have made it a point to contribute upstream any changes they make in BSD code, just so that they don't have to keep doing it in every iteration. So this is a voluntary effort - people contributing upstream due to their own benefits, as opposed to something the license might force them to do.
Apple contributes back to BSD more than GPL does. GPL is worse than the thiefs they claim to protect against.
Fair observation. In addition to the cases that you noted, there is also the concept of fair use, which because it does not require explicit permission from the copyright holder, it would not require you to agree to abide by the terms of the GPL either... as long as fair use can be deemed applicable. There are probably other cases too that I can't think of right off the top of my head, but these are typically exceptions to copyright and not the general rule. As such, it would probably have been more correct for me to have written
But Slashdot doesn't let people edit their posts after they hit submit.
Otherwise... yes, it's a valid criticism of how I phrased it in my original post. I do not believe that it deflates the point I was making, however.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The funny thing about humans is that different humans care about different things. (Perhaps this signal becomes harder to detect as an Act III BDFL of a sprawling monoculture.)
If you regard your code as a means to an end (e.g. authoring a great web site) then perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable stance not to "care" about your code the way Linus cares about his code.
Licence of the day: Craftspeople with Attachment Disorder. Be there, or be square.
What you wrote was completely irrelevant to what Linus was saying. My reply was pointing that irrelevance out, so I'm in no way obligated to address your point. Linus was clearly talking about the kernel, because THAT IS HIS JOB, when he was talking about fragmentation. Just because you want to strawman his quote to what you want to rant about does not make it his intention.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
If I was building a Tivo today I'd probably start with a BSD license. It's what Sony did with the PlayStation 4.
Having actually seen that done, both with Linux and FreeBSD (as operating systems in routers), I can tell you a) that I would choose Linux every time and that b) the reason is the license and the lawyers.
For the first year or so you will be concentrating on adding features. Making things you probably benefit from keeping private. With Linux you make these in user space which might occasionally make things more difficult. You will eventually want to add some low level functionality and add it to the kernel.
At the point you start low level work, if you used a BSD licensed kernel, there will be a discussion between lawyers and management and likely you end up keeping your functionality private a) because you can and b) because your competition might use it otherwise. If you have a GPL licensed kernel, you will likely decide to publish and push upstream a) because the license pushes you to and b) because even if your competition uses it you will get the benefit back.
After some time, if you don't contribute upstream, you will find that you have incompatibilities with new software versions and you will stick to a stable version. Eventually you will stop benefiting from the evolution of the upstream software. Long term this is a nightmare for the developers. You lose a tiny bit by being "forced" to contribute back. You actually gain a huge amount back from the community because they continue working on your software.
This has happened often; commercial derivatives of BSD operating systems either fork completely or die. 386BSD, JunOS, OSX, IPSO etc. etc. It's very hard to do long term commercial contributions into a complex BSD environment because technically you are giving away shareholder value with no visible recompense.
Um yeah a competitor won't use it? bahaha. They rip off Linux code all the time which is why the point of lawyers are brought up. Shoot some companies like banks have ANTI GNU policies to protect themselves. Linux can not be used as a simple link to GPL infects the whole program making it viral. Look it up? I am not a troll here. PRoblem is most GNU geeks do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL and assume anyone can use their API. It is not true and it pisses me off.
Sorry the BSD/MIT license is the only free one that is business friendly. One is ideal the other is based on reality. Unless you have big pockets you can not guarantee someone won't steal your work.
Now add in licensing agreements and contracts with vendors and customers and it is a can of worms. Look at Java before Oracle bought it? Xerox were assholes and prevented AWT and SWING to be GPL. IcedTea had missing functionality for years.
Under a BSD/MIT license I can write code and do not have to share it. Investors agree and so the lawyers that this is the best option
http://saveie6.com/
Um yeah a competitor won't use it? bahaha. They rip off Linux code all the time which is why the point of lawyers are brought up.
Actually, given the vast usage of Linux worldwide, it's astonishing how rare such abuses are.
Shoot some companies like banks have ANTI GNU policies to protect themselves.
Some companies are still clueless enough to do that, yes.
Linux can not be used as a simple link to GPL infects the whole program making it viral.
Poppycock. Programs running on Linux do not link to Linux. It's well-accepted that the GPL does not affect programs that merely make syscalls.
I am not a troll here.
Interesting that you feel the need to make that statement.
GNU geeks do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL and assume anyone can use their API. It is not true and it pisses me off.
Also nonsense. Most F/LOSS software developers understand perfectly the distinction between GPL and LGPL, and choose appropriately based on whether they want to allow their code to be linked to non-GPL code. Personally, I've used both licenses for libraries I wrote. Though for programs I tend to choose GPL and for libraries I tend to choose Apache2 or BSD. I think the use case for LGPL is pretty narrow.
Investors agree and so the lawyers that [BSD] is the best option
Only if your lawyers haven't bothered to think about patents. The BSD license has a severe flaw in that it doesn't include a patent grant. If you're incorporating someone else's code into your product and you aren't absolutely certain they don't hold any patents on it, you may be setting yourself up for a patent lawsuit. Apache2 is often a better choice for that reason.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How can a license grant a patent indemnity on a patent you do not own? While the BSDL may not have thought it thru, point is that if while writing something, you accidentally (or intentionally) violate someone else's patent, your customer can't get the patent indemnity from you: they have to get it from the patent holder. Also, GPL3 is somewhat nebulous on the question of whether if you write any GPLed software, everybody downstream gets indemnity for all your patents, regardless of whether you interacted w/ them or not. Which is a can of snakes, not just worms, waiting to be opened
I thought that the issue w/ NetBSD was that they were the smallest of an already shrunk subset of the FOSS world. First, you had the BSDs resurface after that lawsuit ended, and 4.4 get forked into FreeBSD and NetBSD. And after OpenBSD forked away, Theo did a good job getting his following, while FreeBSD did a great job in taking the ball forward. People who did want to play the game in the BSDL space did fine w/ either FreeBSD (mainly) or OpenBSD. NetBSD tried to claim its specialty as being the most ported, but that is nothing compared to Linux, and doesn't shine even in contrast to FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Also, there is nothing that suggests that FreeBSD is much more of a resource hog than NetBSD. Also, as an example of being most widely ported, FreeBSD had support for the Itanium (not sure whether it's still there in 11) while NetBSD never did. Also for the embedded space, Minix is a better option, being w/ a smaller footprint, but they also take NetBSD's toolchain and happily declare it.
I think the real issue is that there is no high profile company promoting the BSDs, the way there is Red Hat, Suse and others promoting Linux. These projects that don't get financed regularly have a tough ask. I know that FreeBSD does get supported by iXsystems and Apple, but I wonder how smooth that is? The way to properly support it is commercialize it by getting a company, and then owning the brand and its direction.
Uh? I love PC-BSD and am a user myself, but WiFi support is one thing that PC-BSD is short on. I have a standard off the shelf Dell laptop w/ an Intel chipset, and in hardware recognition, PC-BSD doesn't recognize the WiFi. End result is that what would otherwise have been a laptop that I can take to bed & play w/ is a de facto desktop tethered to the table
How does GPL lock up the code when you can ACQUIRE THE CODE? The point of GPL over closed source is that you can't SEE the closed source. Don't equivocate between the two when there are CLEAR differences.
A BSD project can be turned into a GPL project. I think that is what is meant by "lock up". It's more an issue that you can lock up the license, but not the code, with GPL. With BSD/MIT, anyone with a copy has some flexibility in stacking other licenses on top of the extremely permissive license. That's a flexibility that GPL lacks (and intentionally).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What BSD essentially means to me is "no SystemD", and that's a reason enough to adopt it, license or OS.
What's it like to part of the noise floor?
Looks like a person who thinks that it is acceptable to pollute every single linux discussion with "systemd" bullshit has mod points.
This is a perfect example of how fucked up Slashdot can get every some often. Linux subject, and the trolls come out with "systemd! sysystemd!
And if someone ceomplians or tells them that their trolling is beyond pointless, they get modded down?
Sounds legit, carry on!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.