RMS on Java and GPL

Javalobby members lack of objectivity by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-22 22:38 · Score: 2

I used to be a member of the Javalobby.org, but I found that was too one-sided in favor of Sun Microsystems. To my mind, they are not a very objective group and are far too subserviant to Sun. They WERE IN FAVOR of Sun dropping out of the EMCA and ISO talks, for example - yet paradoxically were against the 3% J2EE Sun licensing fees! So, Java Lobbiers - which is it? Will you continue to blindly support Sun and put up with all the licensing fees associated with that decision or will you all collectively sit on your asses hoping SOMEONE ELSE will provide you with free Java environment and tools instead of assisting GPL'd projects such as Classpath and Kaffe? Considering what Java consultants get paid these days I find your collective apathy to be appauling.

Re:Javalobby members lack of objectivity by Zontar+The+Mindless · 1999-12-23 04:06 · Score: 2

Actually, it's more like 43,000+ members. But that merely lends strength to DanaL's argument.
Zontar The Mindless,

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Javalobby members lack of objectivity by DanaL · 1999-12-22 22:46 · Score: 2

Actually, in my experience, a lot of the JavaLobby members tend to be anti-Sun. I remember a couple of flamewars this summer about whether or not there was too much 'Sun is Bad' knee-jerk reactions.

Most of the folks over there are Java developers ( meaning they develop stuff in Java, not work on Java itself) and there main concerns are pragmatic. They mostly want a java implementation that works well.

With over 30000 members, you don't see a unified opinion.

Dana

What's surprising is how long it's taking us. by Paul+Crowley · 1999-12-22 22:38 · Score: 5

As is so often the case, RMS is right on the money. In many ways, what's most surprising is the way Sun have successfully stayed some way ahead of the free implementations in their commercial offering, especially in the class libraries: given what Java has to offer, you'd normally think we'd snap up the chance to create a free implementation. Perhaps dirty tricks like the SCSL have successfully divided us and our efforts.

I look forward very much to the major release of Classpath he mentioned!
--

--
Xenu loves you!

Re:What's surprising is how long it's taking us. by Zurk · 1999-12-23 01:50 · Score: 2

No..they havent. If you want free java code head over to : GJT. You can also contribute yer code to the GPLed tree.

Re:the freedom to fork versus wrtie-once-run-anywh by Ian+Bicking · 1999-12-23 07:06 · Score: 2

Sheesh, how, then, is it that we have 200 000 lines of Java code at our company that runs just fine on Solaris, Windows and Linux? Not a single line of code needs to be changed between these environments?

I stand by my statement. Enough so that I'll even repeat it again: WORA is a complete myth.

And I don't doubt what you are saying is true, either. Your corporation has a carefully controlled environment and if Java isn't set up on a computer, you have people to fix that. But the last two letters of WORA stand for Run Anywhere. I didn't say that the computers at your company can't all run the stuff. But most computers don't have a JVM all nicely set up so that they can run Java.

In a controlled corporate environment, Java may be able to approach its ideal. But controlled corporate environments are not "anywhere"! And I'm not just being anal, though maybe I'm not thinking in a corporate manner.

And anyway, with carefully enough written ANSI C you could make something nearly WORA. If you are willing to put the effort into it, many things can be portable. Maybe Java is easier than other solutions this way, maybe not, I wouldn't know. But Java is not such a clear winner as it would have itself be.

Squeak is trully WORA, so it can be done. But Java for one reason or doesn't choose to make that choice.

Re:the freedom to fork versus wrtie-once-run-anywh by Ian+Bicking · 1999-12-23 01:40 · Score: 3

What struck me about the discussion at JavaLobby is how people were defending things that didn't exist.

Sun has not shown itself to be a good supporter of Java even in the realms they champion. If they believe in write-one-run-anywhere, they have not made that a success. Running Java through the browser is a highly substandard and unrobust solution, but at this point few people have the libraries, VM, or whatever else they need to run Java programs any other way. WORA is a complete myth, and Sun's efforts are pathetic in this area, particularly distribution.

As far as standardization, we already know what Sun thinks about that. But even then Sun has the ability to create a defacto standard if they released complete specifications. They haven't. They also haven't released reference code, since code under the SCSL is clearly not usable in this fashion. Even a poorly documented and implemented Free J*va would provide a better basis for standardization.

As far as forking, Java already has forking because Sun licenses Java code to other companies for other purposes. Besides the fact that Java can't be run at all in many environments, the various implementations of Java run it differently. Sure, Sun can reel these implementations back in, but it hasn't. Anyone could reel these implementations back in if Java was Free.

Re:free software often takes more time by Per+Abrahamsen · 1999-12-28 01:17 · Score: 2

In my experience, free software is often not first to market.

Maybe so, but your examples doesn't support it.

It took Emacs decades to mature.

Huh? What makes the current Emacs versions "mature" and the previous versions not? Emacs has been _the_ most complete text editor as far back anyone remembers. When a new major version come out, it is often somewhat unstable for the first few versions. But that is cyclic phenomen, it makes little sense to call Emacs 20.5 for more "mature" than Emacs 18.55.

And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there.

The various C++ compilers, including g++, have leapfrogged each other in terms of usability. There is no clear pattern, except that Stroustrups own CFRONT of course was first.

Mature C/C++-based GUI toolkits took a few years to come out after mature commercial C/C++ GUI toolkits.

Wrong again. InterViews was one of the first, and it was free. I wonder what "mature" C++ GUI toolkit you are thinking of.

Same for free, mature, powerful UNIX-like kernels.

Well, Unix was proprietary from day one. The first reimplementation was BSD, and it ended up free.

Offtopic, but amusing (maybe) by hald · 1999-12-22 22:29 · Score: 2

So I was reading CNN yesterday, and came accross this link. Quake on Java kills at least four. Hmm, thinks me that was fast, the source was only released this week. But, noooo, their talking about an actual place with an actual event. Funny how channeled our mind becomes after dealing with computers for so long and so exclusively

Hal Duston

A lot of people seem to misunderstand the GPL. by Colin+Smith · 1999-12-23 00:15 · Score: 2

A lot of people seem to be missing the implications of the requirement to release the source code of any changes.

There have been a couple of articles recently which describe well how the GPL's requirement that source code must also be distributed vastly reduces or removes the forking that everyone is so afraid of. (don't remember the links)

If someone takes a GPL'd product and forks it, they then have to maintain the fork all by themselves, and they have to produce the source for their changes.

If the changes are good then they can be folded back into the main product and the fork becomes superfluous.
If the changes are bad then the fork will wither and die anyway.
If the changes are fantastic then everyone will rush to the new fantastic product and the original becomes superfluous.

Note, the BSD license doesn't give this protection. The ability to keep the source closed means it can be worthwhile forking the code and maintaining it yourself. The BSD license is useful in other ways.

--
Deleted

Re:A lot of people seem to misunderstand the GPL. by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 00:37 · Score: 2

Note, the BSD license doesn't give this protection.
Wrong. The GPL doesn't give the freedoms that the BSD licence does. The GPL is constantly concerned that someone, somewhere might be coding for profit instead of giving away their labours. The BSDL doesn't fricking care about what others do. It only cares about its own source. Something that's BSD licensed is forever free.
On the other hand, anything that's GPL'd is forever coercive. And, like homeopathy, no matter how many millions of times you dilute a piece of it with the fruits of your own labours, it retains its 100% potency.
At least, that's what they would have you believe. Of course, this is untested. This strange action at a distance is something even Einstein would doubt, not to mention any judge. The theory is unsupported in any other intellectual property case law.
If people do not wish to help me, that too is their choice, and I would never dream of compelling them to do something against their wills. They own their code, and I own my code. Very simple stuff.
Your choice: forever free, or forever coercive. I know what my choice is: if people wish to help me, that's their choice. That's immoral in my universe.
If people do not wish to help me, that too is their choice, and I would never dream of compelling them to do something against their wills. They own their code, and I own my code. Very simple stuff. Their additions are their work, not mine. Far be it from me to claim otherwise.

Re:There's a good debate on this... by David+Gould · 1999-12-23 04:13 · Score: 2

I remember reading the interview with Bill Joy in Linux Magazine a couple months ago, which included discussion of his views on the SCSL vs. GPL licenses. It's been a while since I read it, but I'll summarize as well as I can remember. He stressed the importance of compatibility -- that open protocols and formats are more important than open source code. It's a good point: the most important factor for improving the computing environment for everybody, as well as for preventing monopolistic lock-in effects, is interoperability. As long as the communications protocols, file formats, etc., used by an application are open standards, anyone can make a similar application that uses the same standards, and the applications will be able to work together (share documents, etc.). The actual source code of the original implementation is not necessary. Especially for something like a language implementation, it is essential for all versions to be compatible.

He went further, claiming that the best way to ensure this is for it to be required by the license, and for there to be an authority in charge of making sure that all implementations live up to this requirement. (Sun, of course, volunteers to perform this function.) He considers this an advantage of the SCSL over the GPL, since with the GPL there is nothing to prevent people from making divergent, incompatible implementations, which would lead to a big mess, in which interoperability would suffer.

The counter-argument, of course, is that since the GPL requires modifications to be free, any sufficiently-appealing enhancements in one implementation would be incorporated back into the other versions, keeping them compatible, and enhancements that are not sufficiently appealing would not be a problem anyway, since they would simply be ignored. It was hard to tell whether he failed to get this, or he understood it but did not agree. There were a few comments that seemed to miss the point a bit, but generally it seemed to be the other way. He seemed to believe that the freedom for people to re-integrate each other's changes would not be sufficient, and that there would end up being versions with at least small, subtle incompatibilities, and this would be unacceptable, since even small inconsistencies would be sufficient to turn "write once, run anywhere" into "write once, test/debug/modify everywhere". I don't really know: it does seem to be a valid concern, but then again, you could counter that it's sort of like that already, and that GPL projects do seem to hang together remarkably well in general.

On the other hand, I like RMS's point that "you cannot close them off by denying yourself freedom, any more than you can hide by covering your eyes." That is, even with Sun's licensing policy as it is, nothing stops Microsoft (for example) from making their own version completely from scratch, breaking compatibility by adding their proprietary extensions, and using their weight to push it against Sun's (and other Sun-approved) versions. All Sun could do is stop them from using the trademark. Other than that, the requirement of doing it from scratch would make such an effort more difficult, but not prevent it.

David Gould

--
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}

The lesser of two evils by Alan+Shutko · 1999-12-23 00:41 · Score: 2

I doubt RMS wants to destroy Java compatibility. He understands standards, he's been using them for quite some time.

His point, I think, is that companies _will_ market systems which are incompatible, or contain extensions. It's going to happen, because there are companies who can afford to do so, and for whom there would be a benefit. The SCSL is not going to prevent this.

What opening up the Java source would do would be to enable users to make core java compatible with the inevitable incompatibilies. This wouldn't destroy the presence of standards, or even Sun's control over the Java name using conformance tests. But it would help the users work with proprietary extensions _and_ enable useful work to be done.

Look at TeX. The code is open. But to be called TeX, it needs to pass the trip test. As a result of this, we've had substantial third-party (commercial and non-commercial) development done: PDF generation, incremental display, built-in PS interpreters. Would these things have happenned if TeX were as tightly controlled as Java? And have users been hurt? Hardly.

Re:this is off-topic but... by Bitscape · 1999-12-22 23:42 · Score: 2

Long ago, Slashdot used the official Java logo for stories relating to the technology. Then Sun, in their infinate wisdom, decided this was trademark infringement, and asked Rob to remove it, which he did.

Funny, I don't see IBM, Red Hat, or Corel complaining when news articles about them contain their logos, do you?

Hmmm by Signal+11 · 1999-12-22 23:05 · Score: 3

I don't know about JavaYou(tm), but JavaMe(tm) thinks that if we(c) just got rid of these trademarks, we(c) would have noproblem.com creating a Free Software(tm) version of Java(tm)(r)(c) which would run perfectly.

Moderators, *This* Is Insightful by Zontar+The+Mindless · 1999-12-23 04:39 · Score: 2

Just because he's the founder of the free source foundation and author of gcc, doesn't mean that the guy can't occasionally be wrong.

Edward K. makes a valid point. Einstein was wrong about some things, too, after all (cf. "God desn't play dice with the universe" vs "Not only does God play dice with the universe, He often likes to throw them where we can't see them"). I think a lot of the flamers on both sides of the aisle are failing to get:

We're all human, and we all make mistakes.

It is particularly difficult to be objective when one has made a career largely out of being an ideologue. This is not to say that RMS isn't right about a lot of things, merely to say that it can sometimes be very hard to see outside the box, even when the box is labelled "FREEDOM".

As for the disposition of Java, I's like to see Sun and ECMA make nicey-nicey for the benefit of the language/platform, at least for now. I don't think in this case that GPL is an instant solution -- unless and until there's a standard promulgated by a recognized non-corporate entity, or a maintainer with the stature of Linus T., I think we'd run the risk of seeing Java splintered, forked, whatever.

Pardon me, just my 2 centibucks.

Thanks.

Zontar The Mindless,

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re:the freedom to fork versus wrtie-once-run-anywh by SurfsUp · 1999-12-23 00:36 · Score: 2

I read through the 20 or so comments at JavaLobby. most were against a GPLed Java clone because the GPL allows forking. forking destroys Java's write-once-run-anywhere (WORA) property.

Yes, that explains why the Linux kernel has forked so many times. Oh wait, it hasn't! Gee, what could be going on?

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.

You don't get it. by SurfsUp · 1999-12-23 00:33 · Score: 3

Open sourcing java and removing the standardization process would aggravate the embrace and extend problem that they are already facing from microsoft

Who said anything about the removing the standardization process? You seem to be a little bit confused about this. What we're hearing now is a lot of key groups expressing intentions to get together and proceed with Java Standardization whether or not Sun cooperates. This could ony be good for Java. As other posters have stated in this thread, we have to keep both Microsoft and Sun from playing their little twisted corporate games, now that we've all been kind enough to consider adopting Java as a standard platform for business computing.

I'd like to make it clear that for years I was an enthusiastic supporter of Sun's stewardship of the Java standard - and this was based on mainly on the quality of the api designs and documentation - but now I, like many others, am pretty much disenchanted with Sun and tend to lump them together with Microsoft in terms of the self-interested games they play.

Sun has to let go of their baby and let it grow up. There chances of being able to win this fight are exactly zero, and the longer it goes on, the more it hurts java. Billg must be very happy about this.

--
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.

Re:There's a good debate on this... by IntlHarvester · 1999-12-22 23:25 · Score: 2

Many argue that the only reason RMS wants to free Java is so he can fork it. That's rubbish

In fact his point is exactly the opposite. He argues that if (say) Microsoft forked GNU-Java, users could either fork it right back, or take Microsoft's improvements and roll them into other implementations. The result is more compatibility and more features.

Although the folks at javalobby probably don't want to hear it, Java is going to fork eventually. Pretty soon IBM and MS and everyone else is just going to give up on Sun and sell their own version of Sun-"compatible" HotBrownLiquid. If the compatible versions are open source, everyone is better off than if there are proprietary forks.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

BSD troll versus Unix as a whole by IntlHarvester · 1999-12-22 23:16 · Score: 3

Furthermore, it's suprising how many Slashdot readers seem to be missing the entire point of reverse-engineering Unix -- Software is supposed to be source compatible with any Unix system.

Indeed, leaving all of the politics aside, one of the biggest real-world freedoms granted by an Open Source Unix platform is that you are not tied to specific hardware, a specific vendor, or even a specific OS kernel. It shouldn't matter if you are running any given Linux or any given BSD OS, because the cost of migrating between them is relatively low.

Instead, around here, it's always Linux versus BSD versus Solaris versus the world. Which I find odd, because considering the tiny market share Unix has on the desktop and low-end servers, it would seem that Unix as a platform should be advocated, not necessarily any specific implementation. The message to the NT-using rest of the world is getting drowned out in the noise of the fraternal politics.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Re:There's a good debate on this... by Stiletto · 1999-12-22 23:10 · Score: 4

Most of the pro-nonfree posters there Just Don't Get It.

Opening up Java won't destroy the language. If anything it will make sure Java remains compatible across platforms by keeping the standard out of the hands of a single company (whether it be Microsoft or Sun).

Many argue that the only reason RMS wants to free Java is so he can fork it. That's rubbish. The point of a free workalike implementation is to guarantee compatibility irrespective of a single company's shareholders' views.

Take a look at the relationship between Mesa and OpenGL for an example. Although the Mesa project cannot use the word "OpenGL" (big deal), the project is most notable for the fact that it is for all intents and purposes API-compatible with OpenGL. I don't think we'd see Mesa diverging from OpenGL if it wants to maintain its base of develpoers and users.
________________________________

free software often takes more time by jetson123 · 1999-12-23 03:27 · Score: 2

In my experience, free software is often not first to market.

It took Emacs decades to mature. And GNU C++ didn't become a reasonably complete C++ compiler years after good commercial implementations were already out there. Mature C/C++-based GUI toolkits took a few years to come out after mature commercial C/C++ GUI toolkits. Same for free, mature, powerful UNIX-like kernels.

It will take Mozilla quite some time to catch up with Internet Explorer in terms of features and stability. And free versions of Java will likely take years to catch up with Sun Java in terms of features and performance.

And I think there is nothing wrong with that. While it is nice when free software actually is first (and it sometimes is), the utility and importance of free software isn't diminished by coming out later.

Re:free software often takes more time by jetson123 · 1999-12-23 17:41 · Score: 2

I have been using C++ since before the first compiler was available commercially, and I have a lot of experience with the various UNIX compilers. I always liked and preferred GNU C++, but it was also behind in terms of robust implementations of new language features compared to other UNIX implementations (and I have reported quite a few bugs in it over the years, including some code generation bugs).
As I said before, I don't think that's a problem at all. Free software doesn't have to be first to market. In fact, I think it's bad to set up such expectations. Because free software has been oversold as delivering not only the best, most extensible, and most robust product, but also being first to market, people are unreasonably declaring projects like Mozilla failures or at least off-target.

RMS again! by FPhlyer · 1999-12-22 22:30 · Score: 2

Always interesting to get feedback from RMS. This one is real good. Java is a major player in the future of alternative operating systems by giving programmers the ability to code once for many platforms. Java is good, but the license issue is a real problem. As long as the Java license does not conform to free software standards, we will never have a guarantee that we will still be able to use it freely tommorow.

First Toast

--
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.

More food for thought by GnuGrendel · 1999-12-23 01:29 · Score: 2

If you really want to see what the Java developer community thinks of these issues, check out some of the discussions that went on in JavaLobby last week:

Java and GPL

WORA scorecard

CVS for Java2 Standard Edition - Do You Want It?

I know that for some reason, it's not "cool" to like Java on /., but for those of us who love Java and use it, there's no going back, so we're trying to make the best of what we've got, and what we can get.

the freedom to fork versus wrtie-once-run-anywhere by linuchristo · 1999-12-22 23:36 · Score: 2

I read through the 20 or so comments at JavaLobby. most were against a GPLed Java clone because the GPL allows forking. forking destroys Java's write-once-run-anywhere (WORA) property. these commentators at JavaLobby value WORA over freedom. the best single comment is here. (scrolling up and down brings you to the other 19 or so comments.)

BSD forever free how? by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-12-23 01:08 · Score: 2

How is BSD "forever free"?

Let's say I have program P licensed under BSD. People contribute code, P excels at it's job, time marches on. People get hit by buses (meaning they leave P-development for whatever reason). Eventually company C has the last remaining copy of P. P is still good, so C compiles it and sells the binaries but keeps the source secret. Uh-oh, P is no longer free.

If P was GPL'd this would not have happened.
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)

Re:BSD forever free how? by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-12-23 01:28 · Score: 2

Ridiculous or not, you haven't answered the question. Your statement: "Once something is placed under the BSDL, that code remains forever free." is demonstrably false. Conversely, the GPL has no such (known--your point about not being tested in court is well-taken) flaws.

In anycase, the problem doesn't have to be simply "misplacing the code". What if company C forks P (creating P') and adds new killer feature F to it? Nobody has that source code either. Again, only with the GPL (and similar protective licenses) can once-free code remain so.

I used to have an online paper discussing the BSD, GPL and other licenses from a game-theory point of view, but I've moved and cancelled my ISP service so it's gone now. So instead of pointing you there I'll refer you to Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", particularly the section(s) on Evolutionarily Stable Strategies. Then ask yourself: "Can a world of BSD software be 'invaded' by non-sharers? And if so, what does that mean for the BSD population?"
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Re:BSD forever free how? by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-12-23 01:59 · Score: 2

"You have no right to coerce him into giving away his work product for free."

Correct, I don't. That's why I don't coerce. By placing the GPL on my code, I give people the option of playing nice with me (i.e. sharing back) or going away. BSD developers, on the other hand, give people the choice of playing nice or screwing me hard.
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Re:BSD forever free how? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 01:12 · Score: 2

Oh don't be lame. You're saying that you misplaced all copies of the source code, and now the last person with a copy won't give it to you? That's ridiculous.
Once something is placed under the BSDL, that code remains forever free. However, this is not a prurient licence, and makes no claims on anyone else's code. It plays well and gets along with others.
I swear, there must be something in the water up there in Boston. I think Neal Stephenson's Zodiac was right.
Re:BSD forever free how? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 01:32 · Score: 2

. Your statement: "Once something is placed under the BSDL, that code remains forever free." is demonstrably false
Your statement is pure FUD. Something that's BSDL'd is certainly free, and you cannot change that. The licence cannot be post facto withdrawn from the software freed by the BSDL. The source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it. Your scenario of everybody misplacing all copies is stupid.
Of course, that doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to own your own efforts later, but this is of no consequence in a licence that is designed to be non-viral.
Re:BSD forever free how? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 01:46 · Score: 2

In anycase, the problem doesn't have to be simply "misplacing the code". What if company C forks P (creating P') and adds new killer feature F to it? Nobody has that source code either
Wrong. The owner has that code. He may do wiht him as he wishes. You have no right to coerce him into giving away his work product for free.
Your rights stop with your code, and do not extend to others' code. You can say anything you want about your code, but no more.
Free code has no restrictions.
Re:BSD forever free how? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 02:13 · Score: 2

It does *NOT* screw you to have your software used commercially. This is your problem: You're afraid that someone might make money. What's your beef?
Your product, X, is still free, still yours, still open, still accessible. What happens with commercial product XY *does*not*matter* to you. It *does*not*hurt* you.
Are you really this blind?
Re:BSD forever free how? by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 06:07 · Score: 2

Explain, very slowly how it is not about money, and how it hurts. You need to prove damages now, counsellor. We await your response. Or we'll throw you out of court.
Re:BSD forever free how? by dennisp · 1999-12-23 04:47 · Score: 2

Agreed. However, some prefer to force the community to give back. This is probably based on the notion that we may act in self interest otherwise.

Either way, I'm sure business will either extend or modularize to a point where they are not obligated to submit that which gives them an edge.

Tom, Tom, Tom by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-12-23 01:39 · Score: 2

I can see why so many people hate you. Talk about viral. First, my statement are not FUD. Why? Because 1) they are fact and 2) they are not marketing related.

Second, just why can't the BSD license be withdrawn from P? Since "[t]he source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it", what's to stop me from take large (not to say full) portions and incorporate them into my own, non-free application?

And before you respond with comments about "FUD" or how stupid or lame I am, why not go back and copy my example into your next reply? That will make it easier to respond to the actual issues.
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)

Re:Tom, Tom, Tom by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-12-23 01:49 · Score: 2

"The original didn't die."

Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true (but see point #2 below). The source code that I copied IS NO LONGER FREE. *GASP* Just like I said!

In any case, I doubt your statement will remain true. As I explained on my website, if there are two programs P1 and P2, one being BSD'd and the other under a proprietary license L, P2 will eventually dominate. Why? Because for P2 to get all of P1's features (including stability, robustness, etc) is a simple matter of copying the source code. That means that P2 is always as good as P1 and probably better. P1 eventually dies. Good-bye freedom of that source code.

The GPL fixes this flaw by only sharing with people who share back.
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Re:Tom, Tom, Tom by Zurk · 1999-12-23 04:31 · Score: 2

nope. sorry. youre wrong no matter how you put it.
Consider this :
[a] I'm a lone opensource developer. i develop package X under BSD. I put it on geocities. geocities gets bought by yahoo and i cant access my original source and my site gets shut down due to the fact i cant agree to the new licence terms.
[b] Since my package was downloaded in binary for convenience, my users dont have my source -- at least none i can find.
[c] i look in my backups - oops..forgot to back it up.
[d] Company M steps in. They have my source. they offer to sell it back to me for $5000. They also sell a binary version for $500.
What do i do ?

Under GPL :
[d] I tell a user who bought their software to ask for a source disk. They refuse. i & the FSF threaten to sue. i get my source back.

I understand your arguement -- you want everything with no strings attached and thats an honourable goal - but this is a hostile planet and you have to guard your own interests.
Re:Tom, Tom, Tom by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 01:42 · Score: 2

just why can't the BSD license be withdrawn from P? Since "[t]he source is available for you to do whatsover you please with it", what's to stop me from take large (not to say full) portions and incorporate them into my own, non-free application?
Irrelevant. That's your code then. It's free for the using. The original didn't die. Do what you want with it. There's nothing wrong with using something that's free to make something that isn't. IT DOES NOT HURT YOU. It's no skin off your nose. Your stuff is still free.
There's some fundamental misunderstanding here. No one has any charity anymore. Just give it away. Stop hoarding. Stop telling people what rules there are. Remove the rules and free the software.
Re:Tom, Tom, Tom by Tom+Christiansen · 1999-12-23 01:58 · Score: 2

I'm going to make it as easy as I can. Software product X is free. It is used to make software product XY, which is then sold commercially under a typical fee-for-licence arrangement. This makes XY nonfree. But the X program is still free. Now, and in the future. Forever. That's why it's forever free.
Re:Tom, Tom, Tom by dennisp · 1999-12-23 05:36 · Score: 2

Thank you for that absurd story.

Anyway, you could have just stated that your expectation in giving to the community is that of forced return if any intend to expand or extend your product. In other words, we're enforcing community.

This does work very well when the community isn't reliant on the software which they are programming. This is why you see the the commercialization of Linux bringing commercial or more restricted licensing on extensions of the products they offer. A business model which relies on non differentiated product and very competitive support schemes is not sustainable.

The BSD license asks for the good in human nature to give back -- whereas the GPL demands it -- and even then, authors often demand to profit from the commercialization of their efforts.

I do, however, diverge from others in that I can see that both licences can be good. It's your choice to impose restrictions on how free your software is.

However, those that demand software to be GPL'd are missing the point completely. If a business model is based upon profits from software, there is nothing wrong with that. What I think some people are missing is that they are not directly dependent on the software that they build -- so the GPL can't hurt their bottom line. Arguing the virtues of free and commercial licenses without applying situationals is nonsense.

Could Sun really completely GPL Java without losing money due to the developers they have in-house? Their expert knowledge would only go so far as expert knowledge in competing firms when intending to offer support. This is why so many people argue against blind hordes of people advocating the application of the GPL on everything.

Here's how BSD can screw me by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · 1999-12-23 09:29 · Score: 2

OK, I am programmer A, I wrote program P under the BSD license. Company C took my code, added some killer features F and released PF under a proprietary license. How was I hurt?

1) Money: I was selling P before, but now everyone buys PF. And I can't add F to P because I have no source code. C benefitted from me, but I didn't benefit in return. Unequal "contract".

2) Respect: Since BSD no longer has the "advertisement clause" (IIRC) no one knows that PF is based on P. *I* may not even know it. Suddenly P is just a "freeware version" of PF. And a shoddy one, because it lacks F.

3) Livelihood/fun: Because of 1 and 2 I no longer want to work on P.

4) Ethics/Morals: We all agree that libre code is a good thing, right? Well here I went and took us down a path that turned P (BSD'd) into PF (proprietary). Whoops, sorry everyone.

In any case, I'm not saying you shouldn't use the BSD (although personally I think it is foolish). What I'm saying is that:

a) Code under the BSD is not "forever free" (your original claim) because it takes no steps to help future iterations. It is only free for it's own lifetime.

b) The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.

c) Despite your inflammatory sloganeering, the GPL is not "viral". It is cooperative.
---

--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)

Re:Here's how BSD can screw me by dennisp · 1999-12-23 11:48 · Score: 2

How was I hurt?

You weren't hurt at all; You gave your software away for free. Oh, you were talking about being hypocritical and wanting money or work from others in exchange for your "free" software.

The GPL does not suffer from that flaw.

Just because you do not wish to offer your software for free with no strings doesn't mean the BSD license is flawed.

And people wonder why the commercialization of Linux brings proprietary or more limited licenses in additions to their distribution. Well duh, if they're putting thousands of hours into it, they must be stupid to want to be paid to do so. Or should they just give their time and competitive advantages to every company in the industry? If you think a support based business model (which is very competitive since we give everything we do right back to the community) that also demands many in house developers is a sustainable model, you're crazy.

Code under the BSD is not "forever free"

False. Your definition of free includes an obligation for those adding to your product to contribute code back. The BSD license does not force this. Under the BSD license, the modifications to your product belongs to each programmer who does so. If they want to give back to the community, they will. If they want to spend thousands of hours extending this product and find selling it is the only way to eat, they will. This is free, the GPL definition is less free.

One of your arguments is that using the BSD license would be stupid. Why? Because you demand each and every addition to your product to come directly back to you? There are plenty of BSD licensed products that have a sustainable community.

1) Money: I was selling P before

Then it wasn't free. Either that or you're tricking people into buying completely free software -- perhaps disguised as your expert knowledge in pointing them to it.

4) Ethics/Morals

There's nothing lost because those that use the BSD license choose to actually give their software time/work away for free. The GPL demands software and time/work in return.

Every license has its uses. Use whatever the hell you want -- but don't put down those who wish to actually give their software away for free (or those who wish to sell it for that matter).

"GPL is not 'viral'."

Agreed. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. It is, however, not a good idea to use if you wish to directly make money from programming software. The same, of course, goes for the BSD license.

While this post may make it seem like I am a BSD loving advocate, see my previous posts to understand that licensing is purely one relating to a number of situationals.
Re:Here's how BSD can screw me by dennisp · 1999-12-24 03:29 · Score: 2

Congratulations, you just eliminated the only honest ways for the author to earn a living after having finished P

It was under the BSD license. He didn't care if another company used his code. If it didn't stop him before, it won't stop him now.

If you don't mind earning your money

Yes, true. There are many cases where this is possible. Unfortunately though, many companies want a solution now instead of later. This means putting all your time in before and selling the product later. There is that as well as the pain in finding enough customers to collaborate on pricing schemes for you to get that done. It may work for small time work, but I doubt that it scales well.

However, that doesn't stop me from releasing parts of my products with a BSD license. I've been working on a Java imaging SDK that supports more formats than JIMI and Advanced Imaging SDK. It has, unfortunately not seen the light of day yet in the free software world, because there has been argument that they own it at least in part because I worked on it during company time. They of course will remain unnamed..

Logical consistency by hey! · 1999-12-23 05:03 · Score: 2

The GPL is constantly concerned that someone, somewhere might be coding for profit instead of giving away their labours.

Nobody can logically advocate the BSD license, yet think the only way to benefit from software development is to restrict copying and usage. If you believed that, you'd use a closed license.

I also think that it is logically inconsitent for BSD license advocates to criticize GPL advocates, although the opposite is not true.

Let's start with the GPL position. The GPL advocate thinks software should be free -- always with no exceptions. The restrictions of the GPL are not restrictions at all if you believe this -- its an illusion, mere legal flummery. People should be free to do what they will, because they should be free, not because the license says so. Likewise the "freedoms" of the BSD license are equally meaningless. The freedom to make free software proprietary is a freedom to do what no right thinking person would consider doing.

Now the BSD advocate on the other hand thinks that free software is a good thing, but there are legitimate reasons to have closed licenses (otherwise, the freedom to make closed forks would be pointless). So far I am with them, but to criticize GPL on the basis that it is insufficiently free makes no sense, if it is perfectly OK to take software someone has given you and make a derived work that is completely restricted.