Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD at COMDEX
From: Brett Glass
Subject: FreeBSD at COMDEX
To: chat@FreeBSD.org
Just got back from COMDEX, where the response to FreeBSD was very, very different compared to previous years. Here are some random observations:
With few exceptions, all of the open source UNIX products and companies were relegated to a separate, "co-located" show: Linux Business Expo, in the Hilton. This had both good and bad effects. On the plus side, it gave open source a separate forum in which to strut its stuff (albeit with the Linux name hung on it). On the minus side, it segregated virtually all of the open source activity away from the mainstream. (Except for Linus, all of the keynote speakers for the Linux show were on a separate track and in smaller venues.) Companies which exhibited only in the Hilton didn't get as much attention as they would have on the main floor -- even if they had been crammed into one of the tiny "sheep stalls" which Microsoft uses to make ISVs seem small and insignificant. And those which had the financial wherewithal to exhibit in both places seemed unwilling to mention their open source activities on the main floor, where it was "Windows, Windows, Windows" all the way.
FreeBSD got a small, but not insignificant, amount of attention. Red Hat CEO Robert Young even mentioned it in his keynote -- a pleasant surprise.
Walnut Creek had a daemon "hostess" in the booth for the first time. ("You mean they haven't ALWAYS had one?" asked my wife, who was surprised that it hadn't been done before -- especially in Vegas. I suggested that a chorus line of female daemons -- remember the "Devil Girls" in Schmidt and Jones' classic musical "Celebration?" -- might be even more Vegas-like.)
Two fellows from the NetBSD project, including Charles Hannum, were at a booth elsewhere on the floor selling CDs. They didn't seem to be getting as much interest or recognition as they deserved, alas. The timing of the show was bad for the OpenBSD project, which is currently struggling like crazy to close a bunch of open issues so that it can ship Version 2.6. Perhaps this is why I saw no mention of OpenBSD on the show floor.
I noted that Digi was displaying some new serial hardware in the Red Hat booth, and asked them about BSD drivers. They said that they didn't have them, but "why don't you just port them from Linux?" (I tried to explain to them that the GPL, which is designed to monkey-wrench exactly such activities, precluded this; alas, they seemed not to understand the licensing issues. I plan to be in touch with them about getting "raw" technical specs, as I need a driver for a Digi 56K modem/channelized T1 board.)
The reps from Borland/Inprise -- whose booth was directly across from Walnut Creek's -- told me that they now had a Linux command-line compiler for Borland Pascal/Delphi. (This is a fantastic Pascal dialect which I'd love to use for UNIX projects. The GPLed "Free Pascal" simply can't compete in terms of code quality.) Unfortunately, despite the fact that recompiling and relinking a command-line compiler for BSD is nearly trivial, their PR people claimed that they weren't considering an implementation for FreeBSD. (This sounds like a company that's ripe for a bit of advocacy; there is NO reason why there should not be Delphi compilers for ALL of the BSDs.)
Hardware and software vendors on the main floors of COMDEX were, alas, focusing on Windows and NT. Few had driver support for any non-Microsoft operating system, and they seemed to be annoyed by the question -- as if they'd been asked quite a few times and didn't have a good answer. (Others denied ever having been asked for drivers for ANY other OS -- even Linux -- even though it's highly unlikely that this would be true.) I noted that the inkjet printer manufacturers were especially adamant about calling their printers "Windows printers," and claiming that it was impossible to run them from any other OS. Laptop vendors, when asked if their modems were "WinModems" (which I often call "lobotomodems" because they lack sufficient intelligence to work without MAJOR help from the host CPU), often couldn't provide an answer.
In general, the hardware vendors -- even more than the software vendors -- seemed to wish that all of this UNIX stuff would just disappear and leave them happily dependent upon Microsoft in a one-OS world.
The most extreme case of this of this phenomenon occurred when we wandered into the booth of a robotics vendor called Robix. We are working on a project for a client which will involve some robotics, and thought at first that this vendor's toolkit -- which contained a computer interface and enough servos and parts to build a complex manipulator -- might be just the thing. But when we inquired, we discovered that the included software, which ran the interface, was specific to -- you guessed it! -- Windows. Since "rolling your own" is the essence of robotics, we politely asked if we could obtain some sample code so we could adapt it to run under UNIX -- or, if not, the specifications for the interface so we could write something ourselves. We even offered to share the code we developed.
But instead of welcoming our interest, the owner of the company snapped in response: "We had enough trouble developing this for Windows, and we're not going to go through the sweat and tears to rewrite it for something else! Go away!" He scowled, turned his back and refused to talk to us further.
Our remark must have touched a nerve that had already been frayed by previous encounters at the show, and it was rather sad. We literally had our checkbook ready, but this one fellow was willing to throw away $500 of on-the-spot business (and that would just have been the initial order!) to avoid so much as thinking about supporting an alternative OS.
Another disturbing trend was that many of the embedded systems vendors seemed to be going with NT and failing to acknowledge its continued lack of fitness for mission critical applications. One vendor which had built a PBX around NT admitted, under duress, that to keep their system even semi-reliable they had to threaten to void the warranty if ANY other application was installed on the system. (I asked them whether they were concerned about the system blue-screening due to network activity, and told them so. The vendor seemed not to fathom the notion that NT could be crashed via a network. Duh.) Other companies had tape libraries and similar systems -- many of them likely to be mission-critical -- attached to NT boxes. Scary.
About the only exception I could find to this trend (at least on the main floor) was Maxtor. The company's MaxAttach dedicated file servers (a product line which they acquired when they bought Creative Design Solutions) have FreeBSD inside, and they're very proud of that. (They don't use Samba for SMB support; instead, they've written their own SMB server which seems fairly impressive. I didn't get all of the technical details, but their rep suggested that they may be doing some things in kernel space to increase performance.) Maxtor believes that FreeBSD will make their servers far more stable and reliable under load than Linux-based solutions such as the Cobalt RAQ.
All in all, it seems to me that FreeBSD, and BSD UNIX in general, need a LOT more promoting and a lot more vendor support -- on the main floor, not just in the Linux "ghetto." My personal approach, were I Walnut Creek, would have been to go for a booth on the main floor at the Sands and share a smaller booth with the NetBSD folks in the Linux pavilion. It's important that FreeBSD not preach only to the converted. It should not be seen as a "niche within a niche," but rather as moving toward the mainstream.
--Brett Glass
I was just wondering whether anyone knows what happened to all those. BSD no longer seems to come with them by default. And at least on the open flavor of the same, I see no /usr/ports/lang/pascal directory.
Well, at least the open source/Linux/BSD community was big enough to have its own show all together at Comdex. However, the whole open source community needs to band together and purchace one HUGE chunk of the main floor, (right next to Microsoft) and then distribute it among major Open Source vendors to better showcase your wares.
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
It's a shame that the Linux/BSD crowd didn't get any space on the main floor. I think separating them out as happened would do more harm than good. While having a separate area for the Unix folks does enable people to go right there when they want unix type things, it does absolutely nothing for advocacy.
Take, for example, a manager who, for some unknown reason, wants to convince the higher-ups to install only windows on their machines. This manager takes one of them to the main floor of comdex and says "Look - Only windows machines here. And all the hardware's for windows too". Even if the higher-ups know there's a bunch of unix gurus somewhere else, it's certainly going to make an impression on them that there's not a trace of open source on the main floor.
-Denor
Last year I spoke to many venders and got alot of reactions you did.
But this year, I found many (Xerox, APC, WinTV,...) that were very helpful and were talking about doing more. WinTv for example told me last year, NO were are not doing anything with Linux. This year they had a display of there WinTV on Linux...
I have seen an overall improvement from last year. But yes you still have those Blind lost people who only know of windows or nt, because that took some cheap class (or expesive) for a week.
Sherm
It seems more than a little odd to me that Linux/BSD/opensource community didn't have any space on the main show floor. After all the time spent trying to get Linux/etc into the mainstream, why do they make a move like this and so blatantly separate the Linux crowd from the rest of the mainstream businesses? It doesn't make much sense to me.
Unfourtunately, this is just one of the many areas in which mass-cluelnessness seems to be winning over rational thought. It's very nearly on the same level on which entities like the Catholic Church operated before the 1700's. (please, try not to make this a religious thread guys! :) )
The masses didn't have knowledge of reading/writing, and because of this, many things were well beyond their understanding. Under this condition, they had no choice but to trust their authorities to tell them what was right and wrong, and out of this came a strongly dictatorial ruling. (beyond this, my knowledge of that period of history is limited... anyone have corrections? Suggestions for how the age of enlightenment could relate to us fixing misconceptions in manfacturer's heads?)
Likewise, the mainstream OS manufacturer has managed to beat the party line into _OUR_ hardware manufacturers. They seem to believe that Windows is the only system worth programming for. At the same time, start-up programmers may assume that "*nix CAN'T be easier to program for then Windows! and (quote)We had enough trouble developing this for Windows, and we're not going to go through the sweat and tears to rewrite it for something else! Go away!"(/quote)
Now, through brute force, Linux is breaking into the mainstream... but it's still not addressing the root problem. The manufacturers, for one reason or another, do not understand how easy it is to support other platforms, especially platforms with a long history of standardization. Short of us (open-source/open-hardware advocates) starting to build our own hardware, we're going to have to start seriously putting it to the manufacturers... "open specs! open source drivers! rational thought!"
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that businesses are mindless maintain-the-status-quo, do-whatever-everyone-is-doing creatures. But if you believe nothing else, believe that businesses love money, and they are now seeing, first-hand and repeatedly, that by not supporting alternative OSen, they are losing money. If their techs are not able to convince them that "M$ for everything" is folly, then at least their accountants will.
I'm glad to hear they sound frustrated and angry. It leads to the mentality that "I won't let this happen to me again next year!" I picture them saying "Dammit, next year we support this UNIX thing!" I'm hoping the year after that, people will pester them for Be ports. (And because Be is pretty much POSIX complient, the port will take less time.)
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." -- John Lehman, Secretary of the US Navy 1981-1987
Alternative OS's are not going to go away, no matter what vendors want.
Sure, the vendors are going to be ticked when a bunch of people start asking for something they didn't plan on making and supporting, and for a while they may just brush requests off. However, current trends withstanding, large companies (software and hardware) will realize that they cannot blindly develop only for Windows anymore.
This COMDEX was probably an eye opener for many, and even though they were annoyed, the smarter ones are going to ponder the meaning of it all.
The danger of course, is that in our zeal to get more support for alternative OSes, we annoy a little too much. Polite requests will most likely generate the best results, while angry demands will simply make matters worse (this is nothing new, but it bears repeting)
*note* I'm not in any way saying the author of this story did this.
It's going to be a long road though, just as firmly entrenched as the MS monolopy is in everyone's mind, that is how hard we will have to work to them to open their eyes to the alternatives.
Finkployd
As in the cases mentioned in the parent article, companies make proprietary hardware with a proprietary interface that only runs with their proprietary binary which only runs on Microsoft systems. The proprietor feels that its his property, and he's done what he wants with it to recoup is investment. I understand that. But the network effect strikes again, and we're screwed.
If no vendor could create hardware with complete closed specs and Microsoft-only code, this would help a lot. But I can't see that the current MS-DOJ case could require that, since it's not a penalty to be imposed on the Evil Empire. It's all the myriad little companies nursing off their teat that are doing this to us. I don't know what kind of mechanism to fix this there could be that wouldn't be too overreaching.
manufacturers don't want to spend the money and time to support all the operating systems..
They could at least release enough to have the drivers written by whoever wanted to write them..
Sherm
I read with considerable interest Brett Glass' commentary about the Linux displays at COMDEX/Fall 1999.
I think people are realizing that Linux still has a ways to go before it becomes extremely popular. The limitations can be defined in the following parts:
1. Lack of widespread hardware support. Most computer hardware out there have full Windows 98/NT/2000 support via software drivers, while Linux support is still limited to the most common hardware configurations. I mean, does Linux support all the functions of a motherboard with the Intel i810e chipset that has built-in video, sound, etc.?
2. Lack of a programming interface along the lines of Microsoft's Common Object Model (COM). This is where Linux really needs major improvements--and a number of commentators in the industry have noted this.
3. Lack of support for future technologies (with the current Linux 2.2.x kernel) such as Universal Serial Bus and IEEE-1394 "FireWire" hot-docked peripheral connections. This is going to be _critically_ important because Intel has already stated they plan to do away with serial ports, the parallel port, and even the PS/2 mouse and keyboard connectors (!) on future motherboard chipset designs. I wonder does Linux support Fibre Channel "out of the box" or do you have to literally write from scratch your own Fibre Channel driver.
Once Linux overcomes these limitations (and Mr. Torvalds has admitted that they will be addressed in the upcoming Linux 2.4.x and 3.0.x kernels), THEN we can consider Linux a serious competitor--and possible successor--to Windows.
You Linux folks can flame me all you want, but think about it--many of you Linux users come from Computer Science college degree backgrounds, where learning to use UNIX is a must, since UNIX is the operating system of choice for most college campuses. Unfortunately, most home and corporate computer users out there don't have that type of experience, and frankly, they may get a bit overwhelmed at the enormous flexibility and unfriendly command-line structure of Linux (which is very closely related to UNIX).
Linux is getting better, but much work needs to be done in make it "user friendly" to the average computer user.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
You are deeply confused. Check the definition of "open source". You'll see that it applies to BSD. Sure, SunOS and HP/UX and maybe even MacOS X have non-open parts, and they are or were BSD-derived, but you can say that about dozens of projects. {Open,Free,Net}BSD are quite up to fitting the definition. Pay attention next time.
You don't have to like it, but the simple fact of the matter is that the GPL is a serious impediment to a lot of good, honest open source work. You can't blame the BSD people for wanting to make a free Unix. In my ever so humble opinion, the LGPL addresses most of the freeness problems in the GPL, and really should be used a lot more. However, I still suspect that even that's not free enough for BSD, and I'm not going to argue with them, because they're trying to do as much good for the world as they can. There are more axes of dissent here than meets the eye.
Furthermore, the whining about the isolation of the Linux Business Expo is also invalid. We were there selling our Linux-based product and promoting our free security portal and it was our choice to place our booth in the Linux Business Expo. Anyone who wanted to be in mainland could have chosen to do so.
Crispin
Whatever...
You've made your assertions. Now back them up.
Linux has BSD beat on reliability, scalability, security and popularity, you claim. That's provably either false or misleading or both. For example, consider popularity. Windows has Linux beat on popularity. So what? Next, security. Oh come now. Shall we please track the number of exploits for various Linuxes, and compare them with those for, say, OpenBSD? 'Nuff said. Now this scalability thing. Yawn. BSD ran on minicomputers and minisupers years before Linux was even a figment of your imagination. And those were big iron by today's standards, with separate I/O processors and hundreds of concurrent interactive users. BSD runs on little tiny machines, too. BSD scalability is hardly an issue. Let's see, what was the other thing? Oh yes, reliability. Shall we compare mean-time-between-failure data? What are you talking about? I haven't seen either sort of machine go down on its own for the last couple years, and when it did, it was a Linux box, not a BSD box.
Your statement that BSD has done nothing innovative or positive for the OSI/Unix community is a blatant, flamethrowing, slanderous lie. I could list a hundred things. I challenge you to read the last 20 years worth of Usenix proceedings if you need details.
But I'm sure you don't need details. They would interfere with yours lies. Damn it, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. What the hell is wrong with some people?
Recently I went shopping for a laser printer that could support all the various operating systems at the Nerd House.
t .cgi
After finding very few postscript printers out there I went to the Linux Printing HowTo List:
http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/printer_lis
I finally went with a HP Laserjet 2100TN which does a yeoman job for all the various boxes in the house. I have had good luck with the HP printers at work and like most of their product lines except the Laserjet 5 series...
I hate the fact that standards like postscript have been dropped in favor of Win-Drivers. It took 10 times as long to load the drivers on the Windows machines than it took to tell the Mac's and the various favors of unix boxes about the new printer...
Gee, he said ...
"Digi was displaying some new serial hardware in the Red Hat booth, and [I] asked them about BSD drivers. They said that they didn't have them, but "why don't you just port them from Linux?" (I tried to explain to them that the GPL, which is designed to monkey-wrench exactly such activities, precluded this"
OK, slam Digi for not knowing that GPL said you can't just port stuff... but he also said:
"Unfortunately, despite the fact that recompiling and relinking a command-line compiler for BSD is nearly trivial" as a way to slam Borland, for not doing *exactly* what he said was illegal to do for Digi?!?
Huh? Did I miss something here? It sure seems to me that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth here. Why is it OK if Borland drags a version of Pascal over, but NOT ok for Digi dragging drivers over? Is it just because he'd have to do the work of dragging the Digi drivers, but not the Borland port?
I see progressively less and less reason for me to even read about BSD, if their crowd are all like this.
Jeannette
Lemon curry?
maybe its time to give up on bsd if your a desktop user and switch to linux or either stop crying cause nobody wants to support 20 different os's
No No No No....1,000 times No
That is the way to lose the battle. I don't want to see Linux beat MS and become the only OS out there, I (and many others) want a varity of OS's to chose from. Pick the best tool for the job, as they say.
Good code can be ported without much difficulty, as many "wiget" sets are being ported as well.
As for hardware, just make the specs open, and drivers can be written for ANY OS. They will be anyway, so make it easier on those doing the coding.
Finkployd
When we people start to realize that diversifictaion (spelling?) isn't a bad thing. I think that a lot of companies have this idea that if they let someone write drivers for their products they will have to support them. If we can get it through the heads of those in charge that they don't have to support the drivers just give us some specs than open source os'es will see a large increase from the hardware community.
--codemonky
--"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
Seriously, I thought that universal driver interface was suppose to be in place by now, so that hardware manufacturers could develop drivers without having to worry about the os. did that die already?
We're all on the same team, guys, except for the raving loonies. Try to keep that in mind.
Please.
...despite this rather dismal post. Compared to last year the improvement in the representation of Linux/BSD/OpenSource was incredible.
-
-last year the Linux "pavillion" was in the basement of the Sands Expo Center. The Sands to me was where the Comdex people put all of those who either didn't matter, or weren't important to the show. It was a bunch of vendors with mediocore products.
-last year Linux was hardly a blip on the COMDEX radar (thus the wonderful location in the basement of the sands)
-most of the booths looked like 6th grade science fair projects. They were small, had very few people there to answer questions and they were unimpressive.
-Compare that to this year where Linux/BSD/OpenSource had its own section in the COMDEX handout, it had its own sponsors, it had a very nice convention space (albeit off the main floor)
I walked through the Linux Business Expo and felt a sense of pride. I felt that the community was being recognized. We weren't on the main floor, but we were in a convention center that was very close to the main convention center (as opposed to the Sands which was a long walk). In fact I parked at the LV Convention Center and walked (didn't feel like paying $20 to park at the Hilton vs $5 at the LVCC).
The thing to keep in mind is that we are a growing community, we cannot expect to be recognized immediately. While I feel the frustrations of not having vendor support, we are still making a name for ourselves. Microsoft has assimilated the minds of many of the people that we would like to have on our side of the revolution. The key is to free those minds and to show them that we have a product that is as good, and actually better than what they are currently working on.
I think that a round of polite and poignant (sp?) letters to some of these vendors might get them to at least look at Linux/BSD/OpenSource as a viable alternative. Don't give up yet fellas
Eric
-------------------------------------------
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
The Digi hardware drivers are presumably (from the article context) GPL'ed and copyrighted by someone other than the hardware manufacturer. So, they can't be redistributed under a BSD-style license, which is what would be required to link them into the FreeBSD kernel and distribute the whole kernel under a BSD license.
The Borland compilers, on the other hand, don't link against anything but system libraries, are under a proprietary license, and Borland is free to compile them on any OS they want to, and redistribute them however they want to.
nt
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Unfortunatly, the Delphi compiler is not Open-Sourced, and is to be released under a commercial licence - neither BSD or (L)GPL or any other Open Source licence,
Borland (Inprise) can release their product under any licence they like (provided it is under legal terms) and for any platform - provided they don't violate the terms of anything on that platform.
The BSD/GPL non-compatitbility only come into play whe the non-original authors want to change the licence, anyway. If Diga wanted to release their drivers under the BSD licence they could, because they own the code - but if anyone else tried it they would be in breach of the GPL.
--Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com
Borland, as the copyright holder for their compiler, can compile it and sell it on anything, for anything they want. Legality doesn't come into play.
The Digi drivers are GPL and distributing them with BSD would 'infect' BSD. In other words, if Apple (or anybody who used BSD as the basis for their OS) shipped the Digi drivers as part of their OS, they would be compelled by the GPL to release the source to the entire OS (including proprietary modifications).
I'm a GPL biggot myself, so I would be fine with this, but the BSD folks are proud of their license and would refuse to encumber their OS in this way.
Note that if the Digi drivers are written and maintained entirely by Digi, they could change the license to BSD and (I believe) the code would be useable in either operating system. Of course this would leave the door open for other companies to appropriate the Digi drivers without contributing changes back to the community - that's why some people prefer the GPL.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
But you know, Coward, if you keep posting this crap, you'll get enough -1's against your IP that you won't trouble us anymore. At least, that can be our hope.
And you have failed your Hippocratic Oath, too.
What the devil is wrong with these people?
Just remember that BSD predated the GNU copycat stuff by aeons. For a real education, go take a good look around on any of the Linuxes and notice how much BSD code is actually there. Don't take my word on it. See for yourselves. This selective blindness discredits you even further.
Would a bevy of moderators please track down all these cowards who are trying to create a bsd bashing festival and zap them into negativity?
Ever notice how you don't see raving loonies bashing Linux the way you see them bashing BSD? That should tell you something.
*BSD does not work with the GPL, they have their own BSD-licence, which is different from the GPL in a lot of ways, and porting the code from the Digi drivers to *BSD would require the resulting *BSD code to be GPLed as well, which is against the religion of the BSDers out there
Delphi however, is Borland's own code with their own licence, and they do with it as they please, so there is no licencing problem by just compiling/porting it on/to a different OS. They do a binary-release with the Borland licence attached, and those who don't just want free beer and/or free speech, can get their wits together to code a good alternative, the others are happy with the closed-source compiler Borland is selling. It is a quality product, even if it's just binaries...
So he has a point in telling that it's impossible to port the GPLed code for digi himself (since it is GPLed), while Borland can easily recompile their pascal compiler on every OS they want, without having to follow strict rules as is the case with GPL.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
[Zappa]
Vendors don't "get it", and I don't mean open source - technical specs should be open, if for no other reason than to allow a) peer review which b) promotes your product, if worthy, to be the "best" on the market, which leads to c) lots of money. Right now they're a) not publishing which b) pisses off alot of computer enthusiasts who c) either ignore the hw all together, or d) even go a step further and publically denounce the product. Geee..... Anybody from Sales heard about this? You know - meeting quota would be alot easier if you took the development heads out for a "friendly" game of paintball.... *hint, hint*
--
First, understand: From everything I've read, and the little I've used, the various BSDs are nice, solid OSes, with outstanding UNIX and POSIX compatibility, (makes sense, BSD was one of the first), excellent reliability, and so on and so forth. All in all, wonderful systems.
But then Mr. Glass goes on to state the following:
I noted that Digi was displaying some new serial hardware in the Red Hat booth, and asked them about BSD drivers. They said that they didn't have them, but "why don't you just port them from Linux?" (I tried to explain to them that the GPL, which is designed to monkey-wrench exactly such activities, precluded this...
That is FUD in the finest Microsoft tradition, and I'm surprised and ashamed that someone from the BSD camp is emitting it. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was a slip of the tongue (er, finger), but I also want to set the record straight.
The GPL is designed to ensure that the source code for a piece of software remains available to everyone at all times. That is all. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Thus, the GPL prevents Microsoft or some other Evil Empire taking the code, "embracing it and extending it", and releasing proprietary, incompatible versions.
It also prevents a single company (for example, Red Hat) from taking control of the Linux world. No matter how many developers and maintainers Red Hat buys, the GPL ensures that Linux remains free.
A lot of people, developers and users both, consider this a Good Thing. In any event, it is the developer's choice. The BSD people choose their license, Microsoft chooses their own, and so on. All fine by me, personally. Some people seem to think there is only One True License, but that goes against the ideas of freedom and choice that most of the Linux and BSD movements are all about.
The problem the author sees is that the BSD license allows you to do pretty much whatever you like with their software, except claim that you wrote it. Thus, you cannot take GPL code and integrate it into a potentially proprietary BSD package. Right so far.
However, the author drops it at that. Perhaps he should look beyond his personal dislike of the GPL. There are several options open. One would be to create a GPL'ed BSD fork. That is pretty radical, though, and I doubt it would be what most people want.
Another possibility is to port the driver to the appropriate BSD kernels, but keep the driver seperate from the main distribution. All your GPL drivers would have to be distributed separately under their own license, but that is not that big a deal. As long as you keep your interfaces clean (always a good idea), the GPL can co-exist with BSD just fine.
A third possibility would be to contact the driver authors and see if the would be willing to relicense the driver to the BSD folks. A good many driver authors will be quite happy with doing this.
My point is, the author seems to think the GPL is some virus that infects all code it goes near and prevents anybody from touching it. That is a common misconception, and far from the truth.
End of tirade.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
This is just the reaction you'd expect from someone not involved in UNIX for very long. A lack of vendor support is nothing new. The turnover rate is so high for UNIX users that every year you get new Windows converts overreacting to vendor apathy they have never seen before and as old users drop out every year, the overall feedback from UNIX users stays the same year after year.
The people you run into on trade show floors are usually just out of college and putting their CS degree to good use in sales. They have no clue what's going on and they're certainly not going to know what UNIX is. If they ever start questioning the Microsoft way of life, it'll be long after they've been promoted out of sales. Next year you'll have completely new people on the floor and get the same reaction from whoever just converted over from Windows.
Not true. A good number of things are dual licensed. PHP I believe used a dual license of the GPL and then a more restrictive version. They switched to a BSD-style license (an Apache-style, which is a modification of the BSDL), and recieved complaints from hoards of GPL people. There are many times where those who are willing, do it.
However, on many occations on my LUGs I've seen educated Linux users admit, for no reason but just to say it, that the BSDL is freer, but that they wouldn't use it. They don't like the idea that a company can 'take' their code. They see it as giving up their ownership of the code by going BSD, and by going GPL they can stop 'exploitation' of their work. Its nonsense, its all just a feeling of personal securiity, of pretending ownership could be stolen.
Anyway, I've also heard a lot of GPL advocates admit they write for the community because they want to improve their ego. Its not about doing it for the good of us all, which is the fluff claimed (especially as the BSDL supports technical advancement further, by allowing anyone to use and improve, both free and closed), but its done so they can tout around. I'd say ESR does this a great deal, he's just moved off from having to write code to get an ego boost.
Tom --
I figure that your refutation deserves a refutation of its own, of sorts. First off, I agree with you for ninety percent of what you said. That said, let's go.
Shall we please track the number of exploits for various Linuxes, and compare them with those for, say, OpenBSD?
I think you're giving the original poster more credit than is deserved and, in some way, you're making the same mistake. The mistake of the original poster is in believing that a difference means either a superiority or an inferiority. This is, IMO, absolutely not the case. Godzilla may be able to beat King Kong up, or vice versa, but either one of them can stomp Tokyo flat if they feel like it. When it comes to urban demolition, there is no substantial, quantifiable superiority between the two.
Same with Linux and the BSDs. For ninety percent of all uses, Linux and the BSDs can interoperate without a problem. I prefer Linux machines as desktops and OpenBSD machines as servers. Big deal. With some work, I can make Linux into a reasonably secure and perfectly good server, and turn OpenBSD into a good desktop.
The original poster thinks that since Linux is different and s/he uses Linux, Linux must be superior. It's not. It's different. That's all.
Original poster -- for the love of God, man, get a clue. BSD is not the enemy. The enemy is internal divisions, fractiousness and backbiting. If you want to help the free UNIX community, and help Linux, then stop flaming our BSD brothers.
The point was that he's just managed to present himself as another cowardly GPL flag waver and general rabble rouser, who, like so many others of his ilk, apparently doesn't have the integrity and conviction to post under his real name.
Brett obviously had thought these things through. To assert that Brett should be censored because he prefers free and open software over encumbered software is a revolting idea, and you should be ashamed of yourselves, one and all.
This is not necessarily indicative one way or another of the reliability of Linux. This only indicates the design decision of what level of filesystem problems requires a manual fsck.
Honestly, I don't understand why any systems prompt for a manual fsck unless there are problems that fsck couldn't fix. Unless I'm doing something pretty strange (e.g. I edited the filesystem manually), I never say no to fsck's questions.
It's pretty easy to change your rc scripts to run fsck with the correct options to always correct the errors, and give you the message about manually fscking only on severe errors. This is probably a good idea to do on remote systems that would be very hard to get on the console of.
Signal 11, sir, is there a reason you cannot use a useful subject line in your posts? Sometimes it seems like half of the comments you post have subjects of "...". I'm sure someone of your intelligence can come up with a useful subject line. It doesn't take that much effort. And it helps people reading your comments. So why don't you use it? Or do we need a "-1 Bad subject line" option in the moderation actions? :)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
NT is POSIX compliant, no?
No. NT includes an optional POSIX subsystem. By all accounts, it is unstable, incomplete, and fails to implement much of what is required for decent POSIX compliance. It also has huge security problems; Microsoft recommends you disable it completely, or NT will not be considered secure.
In short, Microsoft did what was needed to pass the POSIX compatibility, tests. Running actual POSIX software was not one of their goals.
What's your point? How does POSIX compliance really help us, if at all?
POSIX is essentially the UNIX operating system turned into an OS API standard.
If you write a program that is POSIX compliant, and the underlying OS provides a good POSIX implementation, then your program will port to other OSes with little to no modification.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Please make sure the openbsd people get it, too. Any idea how much difficulty it is to cross-port between the two? My guess is that it's trivial. Yes if that were true, you'd think we'd see more ports than we do.
Sure, it will be much more easier than porting from Linux. I just installed openssh on my box - the first FreeBSD port I ever saw, that fetches not some tarball somewhere but does an anonymous CVS checkout from OpenBSD.org's tree. Wow.
Indeed I feel great sympathy and admiration for the other BSD projects and would love to make it cross BSD. My problem is tracking the differences and testing.
Example:
In theory, I already put in OpenBSD and NetBSD support for another project I work on, the CD Index client. This was attempted by studying the man pages from these systems, that are available on the German FreeBSD web server. But I never tested it out so far, because I simply have no machine running OpenBSD or NetBSD or access to one.
Even if I had a second box running OpenBSD for example, I doubt somewhat, that I would follow development here as closely, as I would for FreeBSD. It is just a matter of personal preference and limited time resources.
So I believe the various projects should hold test accounts ready for volunteers from the other projects who are willing to test and adapt their stuff, but who are not willing or able to keep up a test system themselves. I would be very happy to get such a opportunity, as ported software seems better to me in the sense that it forces one to better program organization. Maybe one of the reasons why usually UNIX software is of good quality.
However, if you mean ease of use for Unix programmers, then I lament to report that there, the burden of remedying the currently deficient usability concerns points quite strongly in the opposite direction.
Might be slightly offtopic, but I've been curious as to how well FreeBSD supports SMP.
I have access to an old 8 way P-90 machine, to mess around with, and I was going to try Linux and *BSD and other free OS's on it, but could find almost no information about using *BSD on SMP machines. The only one with any mention of SMP support was FreeBSD, but it sounded like the project was rather new.
I'm sure you can find ample sources for that viewpoint if you would bother to do your research. When you get to high school, you'll find that there's this neat thing called the Internet. It's call this other cool thing called search engines, and they have this groovy interface to pull up all kinds of nifty stuff. Enjoy.
Brett is, of course, welcome to his opinion. I wasn't annoyed at his reference as I expected it, but others unfamiliar with him might get upset at it.
Wade.
But you're right, we don't need a BSD vs GPL tussle. We just didn't need Brett's bias to show, either.
Wade
In the past, source code that was released for public use has been taken by companies and re-released as proprietary code. (In the browser war, both sides started with the NCSA Mosaic code base, for instance. Also, look at the roots of Unix-- most commercial variants are based on publicly-available source.) This has created fragmentation, proprietary vendor wars, and code that is stored in vaults, unavailable to most coders for study.
The GPL is for people who want to make sure nobody can usurp their code. If I code, and make that code available to the community at large, I don't want somebody to take my code, use it in their own way, and sell it back to the community from which they stole the code in the first place unless they also release their code.
This is all very equitable-- you benefit from my code, and I benefit from yours in return. Everybody wins.
The GPL does this by putting restrictions on the code, that's true; but those restrictions are designed to keep others from hijacking the code. Name one instance where the code might be used legitimately where the GPL is a hinderance. (Conflict with the BSD license does not count; if everything released under the BSD license were instead released under the GPL, there would be no conflict.)
The BSD license assumes a perfect community, one which will not use your own code against you. (For instance, if Linux were released under the GPL, and Microsoft felt Linux were a serious threat, it could use the Linux code to create a new operating system that looked like Linux, but worked only with Microsoft software.) The GPL protects the interest of the programmers and the community at large.
BSD's interests are not with coders or the community; they are with the world. The BSD license is very liberal-- and that is not necessarily a bad thing. For those who trust other people to use their code wisely, the BSD or Artistic License is a better license than the GPL, as it provides more freedom.
But for those of us who are just cynical enough to distrust the intentions of the rest of the world, the GPL is a better choice.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Personally, I just -LOVE- your well thought out and insightful arguments. I especially enjoy your wonderful ability to call someone wrong while not telling them how they are.
To answer "What the devil is wrong with these people?", in my eyes there is a lot less wrong with some misinformed people trying to make a point than some BSD extremist zealot with way too much time on his hands taking up 25% of a discussion while not actually saying a whole lot of anything and trying his hardest to not inform.
And, just to give you another rant, I prever GPL over BSD simply because I don't like the idea of some company deciding to take my work and changing my license on me.
Would a bevy of moderators please track down all these cowards who are trying to create a bsd
:-)
bashing festival and zap them into negativity?
Don't reply to Anon Cowards like these people, Tom. They're just trying to troll you. And by all rights, they are succeeding.
Ever notice how you don't see raving loonies bashing Linux the way you see them bashing BSD.
They come out for pro-Linux articles too, trust me. It's worse, then, because we have Microsoft astroturfers then, too, as Linux is officially on Microsoft's hit list now.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity. I don't want a company to take my work, make it "theirs" (change the license), then change it and distribute it without my being able to see what they did.
But basically I only said that as flamebait. I find TC's rampant zealotry amusing.
(I'm also trying to be sure to check the No Score +1 Bonus button)
Indeed it is interesting that Java stucks to C++ rather than Pascal. Java shares some aspects with the Pascal successor Oberon.
Before we get too wrapped up in how much "good, honest open source work" the GPL has prevented, let's not get forget about that the different licenses serve very different purposes, and serve them well.
BSD is about getting code reused, not reinventing the wheel, and and maximum flexibility for all uses commercial or otherwise.
GPL is about keeping software free and encouraging contribution back to the community.
By the same token as you might not like that the GPL hinders companies (prevents them from closing source or making other restrictions), an author might not like the fact the BSD allows that. And in the final analysis, the coder is the one who has the right to make that call, not you, me, or anyone else.
I'm not sure I agree that the GPL has any "freeness problems" that need fixing, so much as a very different idea about what's important, and which freedoms they want to protect. Not everybody's freedoms can be protected all of the time, and a choice has to be made.
Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of good in both licenses. In fact, it pains me that there isn't more work being done to reconcile the different priorities embodied in the licenses to reach a consensus.
Most importantly, I think that we should all remember that both licenses are designed to do good things, preserve freedom, and make the world a better place. Isn't that what this is all about?
--
-Esme
I would like to see what they did with my code so if they did something interesting, I can include it into my code. I can do that with the GPL if they release the program (they're forced to release their modified source). I can do that with the BSD license unless they change the license for their "fork" of my code. In that sense the GPL is both more free (promotes returning code to the community) and more restrictive (forces you to return code to the community even if you don't want to).
Choosing a slightly more modern example, if you run BSD on a Sparc, you can run executables that were compiled on SunOS or Solaris. You certainly don't think that those had to have been compiled using gcc, do you?
The coward had a stupid nonpoint, and I didn't feel like explaining the facts of life to him. It's hardly FUD.
Whatever happened to the dewey decimal system?
Pictures! Pictures! Pictures! :)
After reading all these posts, all I can think of is this group of people soaked in gasoline lighting each other on fire -- completely ignoring the fact that the OS is there to help get things done.
Seriously, does it really matter what license you prefer, your OS preference, your window manager preference, or your [insert daemon or application here] preference? All this software is open in one way or another. If you don't like the license attached to a particular product, then develop something similar yourself. There's no point arguing with others and trying to apply your perceived usefulness to other individually thinking beings.
What I really find distressing is those who feel they need to post, yet, being end users (or working in other market segments), they would probably never go into development of certain specific products in the first place -- which means they are just arguing for the sake of it. To those of you who follow this way of thinking: please think next time before mindlessly arguing a point of difference in a train of thought. You remind me of certain religious extremists.
...the GPL pretends to lay claim over someone else's work.
Interesting interpretation. On which licensing points is this based? I'm not trying to be confrontational; I've heard Mr. Glass say something similar when he claimed that anything licensed under the GPL is automatically assigned to the FSF and the GNU project, but I've found nothing to back up that claim.
The Lesser GPL simply allows commercial linking against GPL'd binaries. That is a fair arrangement for libraries, I think, but other than that, I see no real difference between the GPL and LGPL.
Perhaps I need enlightened.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
How am I infecting anyone else's work? I can only license my own code, not the code of someone else. If I write a program and release it under the GPL, and it's worth enough for someone else to use that code in any way, isn't it *my* right to define the conditions under which my code may be re-used?
If my code is valuable enough to be re-used, is it too much to ask that anything that uses my code also be released back to the public? And nothing is stopping people from selling their own work-- I'm just stopping people from selling my work without proper compensation. And my compensation is fair, I think-- I simply ask that you release your code back to the pool from which you benefitted.
How is that unjust?
As a side note-- nothing prevents someone from learning from my code (besides the worthlessness of my code itself) and using what they learned in their own code, which they can then license however they wish.
They just can't use my code if they choose to hide the final result.
And I'm not stopping *anyone* from selling anything. They can sell what they want, even my code. Red Hat is making a bundle from that exact arrangement. So is Walnut Creek. People are making money off code written by people who will never see a penny. So what do these coders get in return?
Under the BSD license, they might not get anything at all. Under the GPL, they get more code.
Tell me which is more fair.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Companies don't typically send developers to man trade show booths; it sends sales and marketing people. So no kidding they are going to have a hard time with tough questions, and probably become annoyed at being asked the same thing all day long to which they don't have an answer to! These are the wrong people to be giving suggestions about opening hardware specifications, releasting code or supporting another operating system. They probably haven't even seen a spec, or source code, and don't understand what it means to support different operating systems. Give these people a break!
The techies are back in the office, fixing bugs, and generally prepared to fight fires if something goes wrong with a demo. These are the people who will probably push their product management toward Linux support.
You're still pretending that it's fair not to let people sell their work under the traditional fee-for-software royalty set-up.
Perhaps you missed the part of my last post that said, I don't care if people sell their own software. I have no say over what other people do with their software. I only have a say over my own creations.
My code is a gift, however worthless or worthwhile, of code to the community (the world). I do not make a gift to the individuals of the world, but to the world as a whole. I don't care about individuals; individuals die, but the world goes on. I hope to leave the world a better place, not leave a few individuals better off.
The GPL does subvert "traditional" commercial software. (Coders "traditionally" gave away their code long before the current commercial mess. Commercial software vendors subverted the freely available code ideology.) The basic ideology of the GPL is this: information costs nothing to distribute. The way to most efficiently use of information is to distribute the information as far and wide as possible, so as many people as possible can use it.
So, anyone who hides information from others is, essentially, harming the world as a whole. The GPL is a tool for people like me who don't want to contribute to someone's selfish motivations.
As an example, consider if BASIC had been GPL'd. Microsoft's first big accomplishment was to port BASIC to the Altair. Mr. Gates did that (on Paul Allen's Altair Emulator, which was quite a nice hack) by taking publicly available code and making it proprietary.
So, he took code that was not his to start with, and compiled it on an emulator his partner wrote. He then started whined when hobbyists took the compiled BASIC, and said people were stealing from him.
He did have a point-- the finished binary was his, as much as it could be. But the point is, he used someone else's code to start with. So the fairness of it all is questionable.
Since I don't want someone to take my code and use it for their own personal gain, I protect it with the GPL. If I thought I could trust all individuals, I would use something a little more to my liking, like the Artistic License (which is ideoligically more my style).
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
...just because I might be wrong does not mean I am insincere.
Mr. Christiansen,
I've always respected you, even when I thought you were wrong. With this statement, you've garnered even more respect.
I think you're wrong on this issue. But I've never doubted your sincerity.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Never mind that company after company who originally used the "we'll be giving away all our proprietary secrets to our competitors" excuse to keep those annoying source advocates away is realizing that interface and implementation are two separate things after all and are releasing specs and source code. Matrox, Nvidia, ATI, Adaptec, Creative Labs, and 3Dfx (off the top of my head) all claimed that releasing technical specs would be a travesty, but have all released full specs (and in some cases, open source Linux drivers) since.
If you truly believe that this alleged POSIX compliance is in the least bit useable, then please compile up trn or perl or nvi on that system. It's part of a sick and twisted joke, and the joke is on the American taxpayer, too. Read Heinz's article.
I have never done any such thing, nor would I ever do so. No wonder you are posting as "Anonymous Coward."
Whatever happened to the dewey decimal system?
:)
I think most kids these days would agree, "What's a dewey?".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Even if you were right about tchrist, this would be an idiodic move. There are stupid people everywhere, and abrasive people everywhere. Do you refuse to get a good car because you know a stupid or mean person who drives that car? Do you refuse to eat chocolate ice cream because you know of a stupid or mean person who eats chocolate ice cream? Get real! Let good technology win, not your stupid little personal grudges.
FYI, here's a quick shot of FreeBSD's daemon hostess.
OpenBSD is the most audited for security bugs, but that doesn't mean FreeBSD is full of gaping holes, now does it?
If FreeBSD along with any other BSD feels the need to include GPL drivers to make the system more attracive and complete why not just do what they do for GPLed windows managers, compilers, internet tools and so forth. Just create a port and put it in the ports collection. If you do it as a KLM which is similar to a linux kernel module you wouldn't need to worry about a GPL violation or infecting the main FreeBSD kernel source. If a user want's to use certain devices why not give the user the option of deciding if running a GPLed module in a BSD kernel is acceptable to him/her. Users of *BSD have had the option of using commercial drivers like OSS just as linux users have had. That is not illegal is it, so why should a GPL module be. Many don't like having to pay for drivers, so they use an open driver like ALSA or the basic OSS/Free driver. The idea is to give the user a choice.
The problem may be getting a FreeBSD developer who is willing to do the port even if the source is GPL. However, if *BSD users were so dead set against the GPL then no GPL software would ever get ported to any of the BSDs. So why should drivers be any different? For example the SBLive code is out there and under the GPL. The code could be ported as an independant module. The same goes for the Digi modem that Brett mentions. The system does not depend on these types of devices to boot so there is no need to put directly into the kernel. Now I can see this could become a problem for essential devices like IDE, SCSI, and floppy controllers etc. But fortunately FreeBSD has very good support in this area. Remember simply putting GPL code on the same cd as other source does not cause the entire source to become GPLed.
I can see where this could turn into a slippery slope. How many drivers that are GPL ports is too many? But perhaps FreeBSD is already facing this problem right now. The default window manager for FreeBSD is KDE. That is GPLed. The compiler is gcc or perhaps now egcs. Those are also GPLed. In fact while a considerable amount of the FreeBSD cdrom and ports collection is covered by the BSD license, a considerable portion of it is not. I do not look on this as a problem. Linux and *BSD based systems should be allowed to share each others tools. Linux distros have no problem containing BSD programs. This is good. FreeBSD does the same thing with its ports collection. This is also good.
The only thing is I get the feeling that BSD users don't like using GNU or GPLed utilities sometimes. Having a system created entirely from programs based on your favorite license is an idealistic goal, but is it realistic? Is the FreeBSD team really going to be able to rewrite the equivalent of GCC. And what next, Gnome, KDE etc. One might argue that desktops are not a part of the core system but it would be hard to say the same for the compiler. How about the shell? That is a core tool right? Many users of BSD initially start with BASH instead of the csh. Does that mean that they are doing something wrong? Absolutely not! Bash is a tool and if it makes like easier so be it. What if a Linux user wants to use Python or Perl. Does that violate the GPL. No! Ok enough rambling. My point is a driver for a modem or a soundcard is tool. If users want to make use of GPLed code in BSD even for driver modules that should be fine. BSD developers need not do the port, but that doesn't mean the code is not there for the porting.
Stallman says you cannot link a non-GPL program against a GPL library or program. In this case The program is GPLed (yes a driver is a program) and the libraries are BSDed. As I said before you are allowed to compile and use as many GPL tools you want on any system. You are linking GPL to non-GPL code. People even use GNU stuff on Solaris Tru32 or even on windows. The windows libraries are closed but the tools are open. Stallman said you could not release code as closed source that is linked to GNOME/GTK if GNOME/GTK was GPL. Fortunately GNOME/GTK have portions of the code LGPLed so that commercial apps are possible. Also as the previous poster said Linus has made a linking exception with his code, so binary drivers are possible. Stallman didn't like this and called it a mistake. Anyway the point is moot the the program is the driver module and the library is the BSD code. Maybe I am wrong and the kernel makes links back into the kernel driver but how can that be if it is dynamically loaded and there is no source available. In the case of OSS it must be a one way link from the module into the kernel not the other way around right?
I use a GPL'd OS (Linux) and GPL'd tools (GCC, GDB, et alia) to build completely proprietary, closed-source NastyWare©. I have no doubt that there are some vitriolic bastids out there who're now hunting down a picture of me so they can mark a big, red X over my face for having admitted as such.
I am not now, nor do I ever plan, nor does my contractor ever plan, to sell the software I've written for them... However, they will USE that software (built on the back of GNU tools) to make a buttload of cash. Well, hopefully, because then they'll hire me to make more stuff for them.
As it turns out, one of the elements of the software I've written is actually conceptually based around an open source, GPL'd tool... my version is (in my humble opinion) more robust in its implementation. It's about as clean-room an implementation as one will find in the OSS environment, and as it makes use of no actual GPL'd code I'm under no geas to GPL it and re-release. However, I do feel a moral obligation to the people who helped make these tools available for me to return the favor, and thus I will be taking steps to release it (or a somewhat scaled down version of it which doesn't implement some of the proprietary elements which would be useless outside of that environment) to the community at large.
When I release it, I'll release it under GPL... partially because the original package was GPLed, partially because I don't like the idea of Immoral Megacorp© taking my code, slapping thier own label on it, and selling my efforts for thier profit. Of course, they might do their own clean re-implementation, in which case their code is theirs and there's no flies on them, so to speak.
In a case like this, everyone wins. I program and get paid (I win). The company I wrote the software for uses it and produces a service for which they obtain a revenue stream (They win). The OSS community will get software more advanced than what they had made freely available to them (We win)... and I get the good vibes (and yes, the ego strokes) for giving good code to those who can appreciate it (I win... again! Sweet!). About the only losers I can think of are corporate types looking to pad their bottom line with what amounts to no-cost labour. I can't say I'm all that sorrowful for them.
On a more personal note:
I personally try to use whatever OS seems best for the job. Given my specialization in Linux issues, I probably see Linux as the best answer to the problems I personally face (either as an individual or as a subcontractor) more often than a person in a BSD environment might. I expect anyone who doesn't have exactly equivalent experience in ALL OSes will have a proportionally difficult time suggesting a given OS from a purely objective standpoint.
The offshoot of this, of course, is the whole nasty Us vs. Them ideological idiocy... A byproduct of community bonding, a fear of the unknown, and a fear of having training and specialization being rendered slowly moot. I understand that it's a powerful motivation to slam others based on thier OS choice, or assume the snooty, superior air of someone who feels (s)he knows the One True Way®... It's been my misfortune to encounter an over-abundance of BSD advocates who suffer the ill of being insufferable, and who have (inadvertently?) disposed me AGAINST using or contributing to the BSD project, in spite of my desire to remain objective (Hey, even though I know it's impossible, I'll still dare to try).
Please, Tom, try to avoid this more in the future. One catches more flies with honey than vinegar, and your posts are well on the path from the aesthetic to the ascorbic. Of course, Brett's prior flame-bouyant posts have gone well beyond ascorbic, and are hovering somewhere between sulfuric and that stuff that comes squirting out of H.R.Geiger aliens, but that's just MHO.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
This is veering away from the POINT of the thread. The fact is, *BSD depends on GPL'd code as much as Linux does. Irrational, jealousy filled hatred of the GPL and Linux as Brett Glass demonstrates does nothing to improve the state of *BSD acceptance. People like him are a detrement to the ENTIRE open source movement.
You can say the same thing about drivers for Linux- It's difficult enough for hardware manfacturer's to support 95, NT, Netware and perhaps SCO, so why should we ask them to put in even more effort to support Linux, BSD, etc? I am not going to 'give up on BSD' just because Linux happens to be getting all of the media hype. If Linux becomes the only operating system of choice if you want the latest and greatest desktop hardware, then it becomes no better than MS-Windows except in terms of who gets the profits.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
The reason that I believe Microsoft could crack the GPL like an eggshell is because I saw how they castrated POSIX. If they can do that, what do you think they can do to anybody, anywhere, any time? Yes, I believe that the GPL's infinite infection attributes are ignorant of copyright case law and wouldn't stand up based on that. And I've shown how GPL'd libraries no longer exist for purposes of linking. But the real source of my comment is that I believe Microsoft could disregard the GPL if they wanted to. And I doubt you want to see that.
Hmm. That's not my interpretation at all. The LGPL covers GNU libraries, and allows linking by commercial binaries. That's very clear-cut.
What *isn't* clear-cut is the ability to take code from the source of the library and use it in your code. That is a strict no-no.
That's why the GPL is a "write once, rewrite forever" license.
Actually, that's what the GPL is supposed to prevent. Under a less-restrictive license (say, the BSD or Artistic license) your code can be used in a proprietary, binary-only product. Then the code to the proprietary product is hidden; should someone want the added benefit of the proprietary product, they'd have to completely re-write the added functionality.
With the GPL, any code you write is guaranteed to be completely free at all times; and if anyone uses that as the basis of a new product, you are guaranteed that any modifications to your code will also be free. In that way, no code need ever be re-written; it's always and forever available for anyone's use, as long as they keep their code free, also. If you use the GPL as your base license, you have complete and unfettered use of all GPL code.
And if you don't want to use the GPL license, you can still link against LGPL libraries. You just can't use the source code. But, that's the case with proprietary products anyway, so you lose nothing.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I love the anectdote about Robix. Talk about a company trying to screw themselves over!
s html
:-)
It gets good, though. Check out this article from Nov 14 in the Arizona Republic:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/1114comdex14.
It has a small interview with the CEO of Robix. A relevant quote:
"We're introducing a product, and we have a very
good reason for going to Comdex," Rosen said.
"We're looking for a small number of partners.
We have to sort through the thousands of people
who say, `Gee, this is cool,' to find the two guys
who want to buy."
Hehe.. looks like they found "the two guys who want to buy" and told them to "get lost"
Pardon me. I'm really on your side here-- read my posts that are ancestors in this thread for proof.
But.
Tact is never an option. It is always necessary, especially in arguments that are half rhetoric and half logic. (Completely rhetorical arguments are exactly that-- they need no reply.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It'd be nice if they gave away their SMB implementation, but it certainly would be unreasonable to insist that they do so. After all, they wrote it and deserve to make a living from their efforts. It'd be destructive and spiteful to insist, as Richard Stallman would, that they give up the ability to profit from their hard work.
As for being "left wondering what kernel enhancements were made that provided for faster SMB serving:" why lose sleep over that? All of the most likely approaches are pretty obvious; after all, similar ones were implemented for NFS.
--Brett Glass
Interesting. So your argument isn't against the GPL per se, but against the FSF strong-arming the GPL into places it doesn't belong.
I suspect the "five lines of code" you mention is an extreme example, and I'll accept it as hyperbole; I've never seen the FSF take that strong of a position before, but I've never dealt with anything but the GPL in my programs.
But.
If you accept as a given that anyone can release their code in any way they like, even proprietary and hidden, then I'm not sure you have a bitch about the GPL.
As an example, suppose ACME releases a product in binary-only form. You don't have access to the source code at all, even to study and find out how it interfaces to their ACME Sling-O-Matic Combination Rocket/Roller Skate kit. So, do you complain to them about the source code? If no, then read on; if Yes, then we've found our dividing line, and it is this point we should discuss.
If you don't complain that ACME doesn't release their CRRS kit kit, then further imagine that ACME decides to release their CRRS driver under the GPL. As an Artistic license developer, you now have access to the source; you can at least dig through and figure out how the interface works, even if you can't use the source itself to build the Perl driver.
But, even though you can't use the source code directly, you have no room to complain of licensing-- this is no less restrictive than a proprietary, binary-only license. You couldn't take 5 lines of code from the original CRRS driver, because the code wasn't there for you in the first place.
Under the BSD, of course, the reverse is true-- if ACME decided to release their CRRS driver under a BSD or Artistic license (both of which are more noble than the GPL), then I, as an employee of Spacely Sprockets, can take their code, add a SCUD Ballistic module, and release it in the original binary-only form. Since I didn't have to write the original driver, I get a free leg up on the competition (ACME). If my I release binaries only for SS-Windows (the dominant home OS), then I have a distribution advantage, too.
It's this unsubstantiable extremism that has driven open source advocates to friendlier licences, and friendlier subgroups.
Okay, I have to admit I'm often ashamed of the behaviour of many advocates-- but that's advocates of either side of the discussion. I've seen unreasonable posts from the anti-GNU side, also. But, since Linux is more popular than the BSDs, there are more nutcakes out there on the Linux side. I'm not convinced the ratio of nutcake to rational is any different.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
> The GPL is designed to ruin lives, nothing more,
> nothing less. Give it up, RMSite, your plot has
> been revieled
Oh yes, come to think of it, you're right! Duh,
dunno what I've been thinking all these years.
RMS (using divec's login)
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I cannot believe that anyone finds anything wrong with just fucking giving something away for free.
Exactly.
Here is the difference between the GPL and other free-software licenses:
GPL exacts a licensing fee. That fee is this: if you use GPL code (that is, you benefit from the GPL code), you are expected to release the resulting program under the GPL. So, the GPL is also a gift.
Some other licenses (the BSD and Artistic licenses in particular) allow people to do whatever they want with your code. In that respect, they are more noble than the GPL. However, that allows the code to be used for personal, selfish gain. (Yes, there is personal *unselfish* gain-- you can make money and release your code too.)
The GPL doesn't care about your code. You can release your code however you want. But you can't take code released by someone who voluntarily uses the GPL and release it in a proprietary, binary-only product.
So, as long as you don't care what license I use for my code, I don't care what license you use for yours.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Gee! Settle down!
A one sentence truthfull statement from Tom hardly deserves an essay wandering off into irrelevant corners.
Microsoft has some the highest paid lawyers in the world. And they specialize in software licenses. When it comes time, and the time will come, to test the GPL in a court of law, we DON'T WANT the opposition to be Microsoft. We need some precedence first on some elements of the GPL before we face Microsoft's hitmen.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Tom is nothing more than a Perl monkey. Let him hang out with those other loser Perl bastards.
I happen to be one of those "loser Perl bastards", as you so eloquently put it. I don't think Tom's a moron at all. Frankly, his understanding of Perl and UNIX systems amazes me, and he's done a great job at making Perl documentation just plain happen.
I'm not sure if he just misunderstands the GPL, is blinded by zealotry (it happens to the best of us), or is simply over-zealous in his beliefs. In any event, debating it with him will at least give me some insights into why he thinks what he does. Even if it just leads me to believe that he is fundamentally opposed to the GPL to the point of not accepting anything favorable about it, that tells me something. Though I cannot stand dogma, and will have to revise my estimate of him if that is the case.
In any event, we don't need trolls like you trying to add fuel to the fire. Normally I wouldn't even respond to such garbage, but I wouldn't want Tom to think Slashdot likes this kind of puke.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I would have to completely disagree with Brett Glass on this. With specific examples. I stopped to talk to Evan Rosen from Robix, the president of the company. I asked to pick his brain for awhile as I was interested in his product. I told him that I was not a Windows user and that I would want to use his product on a Unix platform as I could not see using the things to do anything mission-critical if they were on a windows box. He completely agreed with me. He told me that a linux version of the software was planned. I think Brett might have come off the wrong way. Just because there will be linux support for the item does not automatically make the code free. I think by asking for the source or for info so you could make your own code was pretty rude. The critical part to his operation is not the robots. Some servos and metal? A little controller box? What is his secret? His software. He gives you info or source and the next thing your doing is replacing him. I'm not saying this is your intention, but a man who has slaved away to bring his product to the point that Evan had wasn't about just to give it to a stranger that was 'promising' to give him free open source code back.
As far as vendors being all Windows support, I completely disagree. The only fellows I talked to that didn't want to have anything to do with Linux was the Microsoft guys. I don't know what Brett was looking for, but I was looking for embedded solutions, SBC, etc... Some told me that they ALSO had NT running on some apps, but after I laughed, they laughed. Anyone working with embedded solutions know quite well the Microsoft can't cut the cake. QNX and Linux beat Microsoft and BSD(So sorry, 2-3M kernels)in this area. Brett sounds to me as if he doesn't know how to talk to people. Reminds me of a 48 year old fat NetBSD Geek that I know.
The NetBSDers also didn't seem to have there stuff together. While everyone else was giving away free CDs and stickers the NetBSD and FreeBSD(Walnut Creek) booths wanted money. I was also confused that I seemed to know more about FreeBSD and NetBSD than they knew of Linux, considering I use Linux. The NetBSD guys seemed amazed that I had a kernel of 500k. I gave them my full attention. What they had was interesting, and I could swear that the fellow I talked to I had once purchased "wacky tobaccy" in order to 'roll my own'.
I think Brett is the typical know-it-all geek, who doesn't know how to communicate to people without insulting their intelligence. I've met plenty in this industry, hell I used to be one.
I'm 24 and I have been working with computers for 18 years. I now laugh at these old fools who think they know everything because they've been doing it for so long. I laugh because most of the time I've been doing it longer and because I don't know everything; and everyday I want to learn more, people like Brett, I believe, don't.
--
Anonymous Coward
"Slashdot had the best booth"
--ME
Freedom is the right to modify the code
GPL gives you this.
and keep your modifications.
and this.
Freedom is the right to own your code, the right to do with your code whatever you damn well please.
and this.
The GPL states that you must give your code away upon request
only to people that you give/sell the binaries to.
that your code must be under their license
only is you've elected to take advantage of the fact that someone else has published some code that made your life easier than writing the same code from scratch.
It is like free beer
There is nothing stopping you from taking GPL code, modifying it, and selling the resulting binaries to your clients. The GPL says nothing about the amount you must charge for binaries.
In other words, every point you have tried to make is unfounded, or flawed in some way. Perhaps you should try reading the GPL some time.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Feel free to quote the clause in the GPL that you feel supports your claim that the GPL supposedly prohibits the act of selling software.
If you actually have such a clause in mind (which I very much doubt) then I'll attempt to explain your misinterpretation of it.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
"Given that Pascal is essentially a dead language, and C based languages (including C++, Java and to a lesser extent Perl) pretty much rule the software development world."
Uggh?! Pascal a dead language? When perhaps pure procedural Pascal. But Borland's best selling product by a large margin for quite a while has been Delphi, which is based on Object Pascal - sort of like C++ is to C. I have to say, that of the object oriented languages I've seen, Object Pascal has to be one of the nicest. Java approaches pure-OO which can admittedly be annoying. C++ is simply a bastard (well, it's a hybrid), so, like a mut, is ugly but can do the job. Pascal, whose adoption, or lack thereof, could be considered both a deficit and a boon, has matured at a much slower measured pace. I'd have to say Object Pascal is a lovely language which is suited for many purposes. It tends to avoid pointers without pulling a hood over your eyes like Java, which I find nice...as long as you're not doing something explicitly involving pointers (which can still be done, but with more keystrokes). Since its following have been few and probably loyal, it hasn't been bastardized six was from sunday (the first time I ever used that phrase I swear) when any group wanted to add some feature.
One of the nice, and unique (well, maybe something I don't know has it), features of Object Pascal, is properties. Properties are member fields which are implicitly assigned accessors according to access rights keywords. This allows one to handle member fields transparently without having to explicitly call all sorts of accessors:
Object Pascal:
{ calls setter implicitly }
aclass.memberfield = foo
{ calls getter implicitly }
dosomething(aclass.memberfield)
C++:
aclass->setSomeMemberFIeld(foo)
dosomething(aclass.getSomeMemberField())
This also allows things like read-only or write-only fields.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Here is my impression of the GPL/BSD license issue:
/also/ wants to be free. The goal: Give the source code to anybody. Corporations are just as much consumers as end users, and they can use the source however they want, including integrating it in a product of which they will not open the source.
/more/ restrictive, in that it isn't then giving to "everybody".
Both parties want code to be "free" (liberated), and both believe their license does that. Both believe the other license is more restrictive than theirs because it fails to be "free" in a way theirs does.
The GPL seems to advocate End User/Consumer "freedom". The goal: Get the source code to the people. GPL cannot discriminate corporations, and like anybody else they must give access to any modifications they distribute.
The BSD
However, the GPL sees that BSD does not strive for its goal because corporations may then choose to NOT redistribute that source, and that the end users may never get access to the customized corporation code. BSD sees that GPL, by not allowing corporations to incorporate and withold GPLed source, is
There are two stratas of consumers then: the end user, and the corporation. Each license tries to get their stuff to the most people, but the distribution accross these stratas are just different.
Well, that's my blurry impression of it anyway. If I'm innaccurate in some way it's not because I'm a troll...It seems to me that both licenses want to do "good", however there are differing approaches to the end result of "good".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The words which you deemed an insult were in fact reflective of sentiments that were anything but.
You then continued to write:
What's happening is that we're not talking about the same thing. Yes, you're right that the BSDL and the AL permit binary distributions. The AL goes further than the BSDL in what it says about making the source for that binary distribution available.That really wasn't the thrust behind my comment. What I was trying to express was that if you put any of these OSI-style licences on a bit of code, then that code will always have that licence. You can't just take a bit of AL'd code (or whichever licence) and throw away the old licence and re-license it as you feel like. The originally licensed code stands, and it stands forever--or at least until the owner himself releases it under an alternate licence. That means that the original code is not going to "go away" or be "taken over". You can't do that with the original code. It's got a free licence on it, and that's that. The difference is that free licences other than the GPL allow you to license your own software that uses the original stuff in any way that you care to. Even if you do so, the original remains inviolate. Nothing can happen to it.
That's what I meant when I said that the other free licences make sure that the code "stays free". Surely you must see that they do this. But you're talking about something else: code that wasn't in the original. Yes, you're right, the other licences make no claims upon that code the way the GPL does. But this hardly changes the original code.
(Yes, some of that was redundant.)
Microsoft's old strategy of "embrace and extend"--which in fact is often "embrace, extend, and extinguish"--is going to be with us no matter what we do. Look at the whole MS-HTML fiasco. This was an open standard. That didn't stop Microsoft from using it to screw the world into reliance upon them through Microsoft-only extensions. Do you really think getting a copy of their exact code to handle this crud would make any difference? I don't think it would. I don't see that licensing could make any difference here. Even if you define in the standard that extensions would make the result no longer be standard [whatever], as for example, I have heard said about XML, I can't see this stopping the Microsoft juggernaut from attempting to give you a "better" version. They'd say, well sure, MS-ML isn't XML (or whatever), it's better, and it's fully compatible with simple XML (or whatever). Think about POSIX, again.
So I think your fears about "embrace and extend" are well-founded, but your apparent conclusion that the GPL would adequately address this issue, and do so in a way that other free licenses would not, seems incorrect.
My colorful use of "viral fingers" is simply that. I grow weary of the times that I see the term "FUD" used to brand an opinion with which the antagonist disagrees. That's what I think you're doing, and I don't think it's fair. I've been completely up-front about why I consider the FSF to be dangerously dishonest in the whole GPL issue. I have repeatedly requested that they stop spinning stories and twisting common definitions. Their doing so has without a doubt tricked at least some people into misunderstanding how the GPL works, why it's there, and what its ramifications entail. I believe that this is an intentional deception, a cheap word game they will never admit to, but from which they clearly benefit. It would not take more than a few small fixes in the surrounding literature to clarify matters for honesty's sake. No licence changes. Just spin changes so as not to misrepresent what's happening.They don't do that. Therefore, they don't mind that it tricks people. Hard to see how using "sneaky" is inappropriate there.
As for "viral", this, too, has a long tale behind it, and it was hardly I who first made the observation and coined the term. I don't care that the term should discomfit the FSF. There are clearly ways in which the term is descriptive of the action. Yes, it has a negative connotation. Yes, I intended to use a term with a negative connotation. I did so, quite simply, because to my mind the term fits. I did not do so to cause people to fear something they did not understand, nor to be uncertain about the reality of the matter, nor to doubt for some nebulous and amorphous reason the intentions of the parties involved.
I think, perhaps, we are not understanding the word "infect" to mean the same thing, because I cannot see how a reasonable man could say what you have just said if his understanding of the words and the effects involved were the same as I myself hold. I note with some amusement that many GPL advocates disagree with your statement. Their standard retort is that it doesn't stop you from doing that; it merely imposes conditions upon your use of the resulting work. This is deceptive sophistry on their part. I agree with you here, and commend you for not falling into their webs of deceit.Nevertheless, this prevention that hardly seems sporting, not does it? I can barely think of a potent disincentive to code reuse. And code reuse frees programmers from needlessly reinventing the wheel.
I think either we are actually in profound but subtle agreement, or else we have severely disparate notions of what constitutes "complete and total ownership of your code". If I have complete and total ownership of my code, then I as owner may do whatsoever I please with that code. Alas, the FSF would have you believe otherwise.One can of course avoid this through linking. The FSF really hates this idea, and they routinely cluck enough about its legal viability that fair-minded people everywhere are uncertain about the true effects. But in the client-server days of RPC, CGI, DLLs, CORBA, OLE, COM, mobile agents, and other segmented forms of computation, it becomes increasingly obvious that the GPL cannot possibly be as infective/effective at reaching across those boundaries as the FSF wishes it were. That's how I made removed the virus from all GPL'd libraries and made them LGPL'd. Even Bruce Perens has confessed here in this forum that such separations are going to happen in the computing models we see today, and that the GPL does not address them. My recollection is that he called them "loopholes".
I agree with you that my code code is not affected. The FSF, however, most vociferously disagrees with both of us. They claim that the GPL means that I cannot distribute my own code under my own terms. If I can't do as I will with my own code, then it is hardly unaffected, nor am I its complete and total owner. That's there position. Mine is that I am complete and total owner, and am consequently free to do whatever I please with that which is mine. It is, well, peculiar at best, that copyright law should extend its notion of a derived work in this way. The FSF recognizes no notion of proportion in their figmentational notions of what constitutes a derived work, staying completely boolean in their thinking. The courts have never been so binary.In any event, that's not what the issue is. The issue is that the FSF feels that their code affects my code, that their licence on their code spreads to everything their code touches, meaning my code, and that this process continues in perpetuity, without regard to dilution or proportionality. It is this very complete silliness that they espouse which has engendered the notion of the GPL being an infectious virus. If you prefer another way of thinking about how silly it is, consider it as an application of digital homeopathy.
Surely you don't really believe that, do you? Free licences will do that, but not the GPL. The GPL affects other code in a way that a free licence does not. This is my entire point. Yes, it forces. But it forces something else. It forces what happens to something other than the original code. It allows the author of one work to restrict what happens to the work of an entirely different author.Can you imagine how silly it would be if a book were published whose copyright included a restriction that the book could not be used by black people, or in a public library, or placed on the same shelf as a book by a different author? Imagine if a song were published under a restriction that it could not be played a station that also played a song by a competing musician, and that any other songs played by that station fell under the same restriction as the first song? Really, it's completely silly.
I've always found "use" restrictions very strange. See my previous paragraph. And I find it nothing short of mendacious that the FSF should claim their restrictions are anything but that. Yours is a very common sentiment, and I can certainly respect your feelings on this matter. A lot of people feel this way. That's why you so many licensing terms that in effect grant unlimited non-commercial use, but that for commercial use, you must contact the author to make other arrangements. I can hardly fault them too strongly for this, because I do hear what they're feeling. They've done their work for free, and they don't want people to get some benefit out their work which they themselves are not getting.According to the FSF, this is not free source, open software, or anything else you care to call it, because it's got anti-commercial restrictions. And then they tell you that their restrictions which bar anyone from using their software in what any businessman would be call a commercial sense (traditional fee-for-licence schemes) is not anti-commercial. Who but George Orwell could be so proud of the boldness of this spin job?
It would be more honest of the FSF to get out of the business of word games and related spin. But they are, fundamentally, a politico-economic foundation, not a technical one. They wish that all software were GPL'd, because they could thereby impose their morality upon others by the--what word do you want me to say here other than the completely honest "infective nature" or "viral nature"--perhaps "collateral damages", then--of the GPL.
I must confess that I have on a few occasions in the past, and doubtless several in the future, contemplated places where I would dearly delight in seeing the GPL installed and enforced. Oh, you do not know how sorely tempted I have been! One example is with Microsoft's operating systems products, because if they were court-ordered to slap the GPL on their OSes, that would be a likely end to their strategy of putatively "integrating" into the OS any application area that they care to monopolize.
But you know what? This is a personal weakness of mine, and I must overcome the urge. Tempting though it may sound, I must reject the temptation. I must. That's because it is fundamentally immoral to coerce others to behave in accord with your own sense of morality. It doesn't matter whether your morality happens to be the best around, or even the best there can ever be. Coercion is by its very nature by definition immoral. As with the paradox of having your cake and eating it too, morally you simply cannot enforce your own morality on others without sacrificing that very moral high ground which you would claim to occupy. Without free will, there can be no morality at all.
The GPL requires that you give away your family jewels.
The only reason that one might be bound by the GPL, is if you've taken some GPLed code, and taken advantage of the fact that it was GPLed, so the family jewels in question are not yours.
The family jewels analogy doesn't work on several fronts, the main one being that by giving them away, one doesn't lose access to them. By
giving them away under the GPL, the jewels one keeps in the safe actually get more valuable as they are enhanced by the people that they've also been given to.
That makes it impossible to sell software in the tried and true fashion
RedHat would seem to show the lie of that statement.
Even if that were not the case, appealing to people on the platform of tradition in an industry that is fueled by change seems like an odd stance to take.
by which all other intellectual property is produced and sold
Not all other IP is necessarily sold this way (i.e. scientific research) so your case that it is essential for such work to be sold in this way, for it to be done at all, is flawed.
The GPL effectively prohibits such profits, and thus destroys the incentive a company might have for investing in the initial development.
You seem to be saying that the companies that currently work on GPLed software cannot exist.
You'll be proving that Bumble Bees cannot fly next.
You are also missing the point that a company that decides to use GPLed software will be able to stand on the shoulders of giants, whereas the conventional software producer may well find themselves reinventing several wheels. This gives the GPL company the opportunity to bring their product to market more quickly, and establish themselves.
One is only bound by the conditions of the GPL if using other people's software in the first place. You are perfectly free to write all that software again, and license it in whatever way you like, but if you decide to use another's IP, I'd hope that you (being a supporter of conventional licenses) would agree that you are bound to abide by the terms under which that IP is distributed.
If that happened with medicine, we'd have no drug companies. And no drugs.
This is patently untrue, since pure scientific research is regularly funded by industry.
It is also irrelevant because drugs are protected by patent (or industrial secrecy), not copyright. These patents expire much sooner than copyright on software, which means that the drugs companies have a much more limited period of protection than is offered by copyright on software, and yet they survive quite happily.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
The previous poster's post was unsubstantiated. As such it makes it very difficult to verify to ascertain whether it is slander or not.
While I have the highest respect for Brett Glass's intellect I refuse to make judgements on issues that are essentially unverifiable. I'm sure the people that know and work with Brett could offer some insight on Brett's character, but not being one of those people I refuse to attempt to make such a judgement one way or the other.
If the incident in question did happen, the previous poster has every right to bring it up in a discussion. Of course, his/her credibility would be far higher if (s)he hadn't posted anonymously.
Also, the statement: Provide your real name, or you're nothing but a liar gives two alternatives that are not mutually exclusive or exhaustive. The poster could very well be a liar, and be willing to provide his/her real name. OR the poster could be telling the truth and still be unwilling to leave the cloak of anonymousity.What is the world coming to, with programmers of all people using such faulty logic?
If you mean on a BSD CD then you are wrong. This is what I suggested. Don't put the driver in the main kernel. Just put it on the ports collection CD. BSD has no problems with GPL code on their ports. You do realize that you can create a device as a seperate module for FreeBSD just like linux right? This is called a KLM formerly LKD and allows the use of binary only in BSD as well. If you want to put it directly into the kernel then you are half right. The new BSD kernel code would have to be GPL, but actually nothing in the revised version of the BSD license prevents changing the license even to a GPL license. Now that wouldn't be a nice thing to do without permission but it would not be illegal at least with the new BSD license without the advertising clause anyway.
A royalty is something payed by everyone.
However, it is not logical for BSDL supporters to bitch about the GPL. Why? Let's play sorites.
1. The BSDL allows for commercial, proprietary, binary-only release of software.
2. Binary-only software does not include source.
3. If you don't have the source, you can't re-use the source.
4. GPL software has a binary release.
The rest is left as an exercise in logic.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The notion of a putative "community" has long been used by politicians, ideologues, and others to advance their causes at the expense of those who can be deceived into believing it.
The fact is that there is no one "free software community." There are many individuals out there who make use of, and create, open source software -- all for different reasons. The claim that re-using code which the author has intentionally given to the world, to use as it will, is somehow "theft" from this mythical community is an outright lie which feeds upon spite and jealousy.
Alas, the GPL itself was motivated by the spite and jealousy of one person -- Richard Stallman -- who lived in a sheltered academic world. Stallman refused to recognize that in order for such a world to exist, those outside that world had to be able to benefit from the work that was done inside. Spiteful and jealous about the notion that someone might -- heaven forbid! -- make money by furthering the work of the MIT AI Lab, he set out to "monkey wrench" their endeavors.
The GPL's "poison pill" license was the result. This license does nothing to harm large players, such as Microsoft, which have plenty of development resources and need not use freely availble code. However, it poisons new endeavors -- the "little guys" who might grow businesses that could challenge the big ones. The harm that has already been wrought by this dangerous approach is immeasurable.
--Brett Glass
Who cares what Tom wrote in other forums or other messages. The previous poster flamed Tom for a single sentence in a non-inflammatory posting. If that posting were written by anyone other than Tom it would not have had that response.
Tom by be a bit over the top at times, and way over the edge at others, but when he keeps his temper in check and writes a decent post, then he deserves the same treatment as anyone else who writes a decent post.
I got the feeling that the AC who responded had his reply already written and just waiting to find a TC post to reply to.
And talking about names known within the community, what kind of reputation does "Anonymous Coward" have?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
To which statement do you refer? I made several statements above, though they were related.
None of them, however, were made in a spirit of cynicism. Rather, they point out what's really so -- what one can see when one cuts through the rhetoric and examines the intended and actual effects of the GPL. I've thought long and hard about these issues, listened to many people. My comments above are a distillation of some of my observations.
I beg to differ with you. My work on Linux has been totally, 100% motivated by wanting to contribute to a greater good. A community work. And many, many of my peers and friends (many of whom I know in RL) function similarily.
It sounds as if your intentions are very good -- and I respect them. However, the actual effects of your work may not be to contribute as much to a greater good as you would like. The GPL has a negative impact, as does the generation of new code which is licensed under it. If you truly want to do the most good for the world, you should license your code under a license which does not contain the GPL's anti-business, anti-programmer, anti-advancement "poison pill." I'd love to see you contribute to one of the BSDs (NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or PicoBSD), or to Apache, or to XFree86, or to BIND.
We're helping to build a better world. At least, that's how we feel. How sad that you don't feel the same!
Unfortunately, Richard Stallman's writings are designed to encourage people to feel as if they are helping to build a better world, when in fact they are furthering Richard's personal agenda of spite against commercial softare development. This is, indeed, a sad situation! Again, you can truly benefit all of us by contributing to projects which consist of code that is released under a different license.
I hope not all of the BSD developers are as disillusioned as you seem to be.
I'm not "disillusioned;" rather, over time I have come to see through the illusion projected by Stallman and the "Free Software Foundation" (which, in fact, captures software so that Stallman can use it as a weapon rather than making it free for all to use).
And as for the GPL's supposed roots in "spite and jealousy" as you portray... I don't purport to speak for RMS. I've never met the man in RL.
You should -- or should at least listen to tapes of his speeches and/or read transcripts of them.
When Richard is speaking to individuals, or when he speaks before a group which he considers to be receptive to it, he reveals his true agenda: one of spite against those who make money via software or in fact any form of intellectual property. Engage him sufficiently, and he will assert bluntly that the GPL is designed to sabotage the efforts of anyone who wishes to reap rewards via such creative work.
But you know what? He's irrelivent. The GPL is being used as a tool for the greater good, a way to contribute to a project much larger than the sum of the individuals working on it, while still having some sense of security that the community project cannot be stolen.
Again, the concept that there is a "community" is a sham. Each contributor is an individual with his or her own goals and motivations. Re-using and building upon open source is no more "stealing" from a community than is using information one has gleaned from a library book to make money.
The GPL is independant of its creator.
So, in that sense, is a computer virus. But, like the virus, the GPL does great harm.
The analogy goes further. A virus is often spread via deception or stealth. Likewise, the GPL is made to appear harmless via the language in its "preamble." (How many licenses of any kind do you know of that have a "preamble?" The sole purpose of the one that's attached to the GPL is to deceive users and developers about the license's true purpose.) Stallman, in his essay "Why Software Should Not Have Owners," urges programmers to "infect" their employers' software with the GPL so as to sabotage their attempts to make money from their hard work.
I as a developer want to contribute to this community project, and I want assurence that our work will not be stolen and incorperated into someone else's project, enhanced, and kept proprietary.
This contradicts your assertion, earlier, that you would like your code to do the maximum possible good. In order to maximize the benefits which people may derive from your code, you must allow them to use it for any purpose.
I want assurence that ALL derivatives of our work are kept Free - and that means the source MUST be available. The GPL provides this, the BSD licence(s) does(do) not.
This is a warped definition of "free," as indicated by the capitalization. It is, alas, part of Stallman's rhetoric and dogma.
Stallman's deceptive agenda relies on an old rhetorical technique called a "pivot word" -- a shift, within a given context, from one meaning of a word to another. In this case, the shift is from the meaning "without cost" to the anthropomorphic meaning "free to do what it will" -- a meaning which cannot be applied to code because it is not a sentient being.
You want to know what I really think? Based on what I've read from you, I think you're a small-minded, petty man that is incapable of contributing to a project without baking his ego into it, and so equally incapable of conceiving of a world in which people donate -freely!- their hard work and time to selflessly advance a community project.
Either that, or you're so threatened by the sheer power of a group of community-minded, motivated developers that you blindly lash out at them. A dinosaur being overrun by a horde of mammals.
How sad for you in either case!
And how truly sad that you appear to have sunk to a level when you no longer argue the individual points of an opinion; you resort to repeating yourself over and over. You know what that is Brett? DOGMA.
The above is a combination of an ad hominem attack and a repetition of Stallman's rhetoric and dogma. It does not advance your argument.
Again, if you really do espouse the goals you state above -- to maximize the good you do for others and to contribute to software projects which do so -- you will, I hope, see through Stallman's smokescreen and eschew the GPL.
There are many projects out there which are truly open source (the GPL violates at least one and probably two of the points of the Open Source Definition), and produce truly unencumbered software. They could use your help.
--Brett Glass
This is why, while the BSD license (and other similar licenses) allow programmers to stand on one another's shoulders and be rewarded for their efforts, the GPL intentionally handicaps any programmer who seeks to be justly rewarded for his creative work.
The fact that you claim that my correct accounts of Stallman's motives "border on slander" indicates that you may have been deceived by the rhetoric on the FSF's Web site, which has been intentionally crafted to hide those motives.
Here's an interesting case in point. About a year ago, I pointed out on a public mailing list some text on the FSF site in which Richard's anti-business motives were clearly evident. What did Richard do? He elided the text, leaving no evidence that it had ever been there. Sort of Big Brotherish.
--Brett
The official story is that Borland/Inprise is working on Linux versions of Delphi and C++Builder. This doesn't eliminate the possibility of other operating systems such as FreeBSD or Solaris in the future, but at this time we're focused on getting our Linux ports done, done right, and delivered as fast as possible. Some of the biggest work for Kylix that we're tackling today is decoupling the Windows dependancies from our tools. This core work for Kylix lays a flexible foundation that will give Inprise/Borland more mobility in the future to move to other operating systems and platforms in the future if we choose - and in turn let our customers get there more quickly as well. We're interested in delivering earthshattering tools like Delphi and C++Builder for the platforms that our customers are interested in. The biggest, baddest, and loudest voice over the past year has been the Linux voice, so that's what were up to right now. After Kylix? Who knows. Right now, I'm just looking forward to that first Tform/Tbutton Linux app that's going to throw a loud proud and native "Hello World" in my face :^)
-Michael
Michael Swindell
Sr. Product Manager
Inprise/Borland
their PR people claimed that they weren't considering an implementation for FreeBSD. (This sounds like a company that's ripe for a bit of advocacy; there is NO reason why there should not be Delphi compilers for ALL of the BSDs.)
Therefore, the appropriate price to pay to license GPLed code is zero.
If a developer pays a nonzero amount to license the code, he is digging himself into a hole, as that cost can never be recovered.
This is part of the "monkey wrenching" effect of the GPL. Some advocates of the GPL often say, "Just go to the original author and license the code." However, they ignore the fact that (a) Many authors of GPLed code share Stallman's anti-business ideology and will not do so; and (b) Because the code has zero market value, licensing it is a dead loss.
Finally, it is often impossible to license GPLed code because it is not possible to establish authorship.
These mechanisms reinforce the intended effect of the GPL: to destroy programmers' businesses, markets, and livelihoods.
--Brett Glass
Everyone can use my code under the GPL as well. They just have to let everyone see what they did.
No; they must do more. According to the GPL, they must make it available to all and sundry for free, sacrificing any compensation they might have hoped to get for their creative efforts. This effectively prohibits them from using your code in any product they hope to sell for money.
Worse still, the people who will be most hurt by this are small developers who don't have the time or money to reimplement what you did on their own. Big companies, such as Microsoft, don't need your code; they can hire armies of programmers to create their own. But the little guy, who might challenge Microsoft if only he could add his unique value instead of redoing what's already been done, is out in the cold.
In short, by using the GPL, you're hurting exactly the person you most probably would most want to help.
--Brett Glass
Very few -- if any -- small software vendors have any illusion that they'll become the next Microsoft. However, they do deserve to be paid for the use of their work, just as do artists, musicians, and authors.
--Brett Glass
And by what means would they do this?
--Brett
Not true. The work is still yours. You have licensed it very freely, but it is still your property. What's more, under the full, four-clause BSD license, you can insist that you be given credit when it is used. Or, if you aren't worried about getting credit, you can remove that clause.
Earlier in the thread was an interesting argument:
Oh, you wish to own their code. Thanks for your gift, it makes it so meaningful now.
Right. I want to own their code -just as much as they own mine-. Under the GPL, my code is mine, their code is theirs.
Not so. The GPL says, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine."
It's ironic: Richard Stallman often labels authors of closed source programs as "hoarders." But in fact, the FSF and GNU projects hoard code under their own copyright. (They will not accept any contribution of code unless the author gives up all rights to it and assigns them to the FSF).
By contrast, the author of a closed source program must license it in order to make money. No, he doesn't have to reveal the source, but if he does not at least allow others to use it for a reasonable price, no one will patronize his business and he will not make a living.
So, in fact, the FSF and the GPL are the "hoarders," not the programmer who wishes to avoid needlessly reinventing the wheel.
--Brett Glass