Slashdot Mirror
YABGC: Yet Another BSD GPL Comparison
jay_rf writes "Found this by way of Linux Today: BSD vs. GPL posted at OS Opinion. " Its an ongoing debate, but what do you think about it?
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
The BSD license makes programmers free to have their work exploited by corporate interests for no remuneration. The GPL protects against that.
Choose whatever license you want, but keep in mind that by choosing BSD, you could be working for Microsoft for free.
Further, it is simply not true that the GPL prevents selling software. It just means that the source has to be included. Plenty of people will pay for software regardless of source availability.
OS Opinion is like Slashdot without the stories.
For end user applications, I think GPL is a great license: it makes companies share their modifications while allowing commercial distribution.
For libraries, I think GPL is not very good. The reason is the following. Development and research labs often start software development without making an up-front commitment to building open source software. Their projects are released as open source as an afterthought, when plans for commercialization fail, when there is no market for the software, or if a competitor became number one in the market and there is no profitable business in being second. Some companies may also release successful products in open source after a few years on the market, as they figure out that the money is in support, consulting, and add-ons.
Getting free software that way is not perfect, but much (if not most) free software was created that way (even a lot of software we may not think of like that--remember that many universities and basic research labs also have intellectual property rights to the works of their students, professors, and researchers).
Many of those institutions will not want to make an early commitment to making their software free. But with GPL libraries, they would have to.
LGPL and BSD both allow development and research labs to write software that will fit in smoothly with the free software infrastructure while allowing those institutions to keep their options open. If those institutions can't build their software on LGPL or BSD licenses, the software is going to be built on proprietary licenses and isn't going to make it out.
So, I think the GPL/LGPL approach for applications/libraries is a good one. GPL/BSD is also good. Both GPL and BSD have their uses.
As for a more temporary copyright, I think scaling back copyright to its original duration (or even shorter for software), possibly with an open source requirement, would be good public policy and serve the purposes of the copyright act.
But it's unlikely to happen: too many media companies have too large a stake in the current system. As people put it: every time the Mickey Mouse copyright is about to expire, Disney lobbies to get copyright protection extended for another 20 years.
"Perhaps you should look proprietary up in the dictionary before you apply it to gcc."
-----
Proprietary: (1) of, relating to, or characteristic of a proprietor (2) used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right.
Proprietor : one who has the legal right or exclusive title to something : OWNER
-----
Proprietary software is owned software. The FSF owns gcc. By retaining a copyright, they have retained exclusive legal rights to gcc.
The FSF is the owner and proprietor of gcc, and thus gcc is proprietary. Perhaps you should use a real dictionary, instead of the redefinitions the FSF uses.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The article writer doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. It's just a big rant about how BSD is better because it programmers to make momey off their code, while GNU doesn't. This of course is completely untrue.
Don't waste your time. This is unworthly of slashdot.
Oh, no.
That is spectacularly unfair. ACs certainly seem to generate more than their fair share of the rubbish, but there are plenty of inteligent posters who post AC for whatever reason. Sometimes it's so they can post information without fear of comeback - a service for which we're all grateful - and sometimers it's just that they prefer anonymity for whatever reason. Bottom line, though - there are plenty of good AC comments. Scroll through any article out there and you'll find them.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Oh, no, that's unfair.
As a programmer (not a very active programmer, but a programmer nonetheless) I can see the attraction of the GPL for my code. It stops anyone from taking it and then releasing a modified version without crediting or reimbursing me, or even providing me with the opportunity to do the same to their program. That's a real attraction, and pretty much what the GPL offers to programmers.
The BSD license, OTOH, is very little away from being PD - it's little more than a 'do what you want' license. As such, if you've BSD'd your code, I can treat it as a very useful resource. It gives me library code I can use with basically no strings attached. That it EXTREMELY useful.
There's no double-standards in that by any means. I'm merely stating the ideals for many.
Personally?
I'm not a total free software enthusiast. It has its place, but I also feel I have a right to determine what to do with my work and to gain financial reward for my effort. I don't think a service & support business model is viable in the long-term, so I'm not trying that one out.
So, if and when I produce something big it gets released as closed-source. It might ultimately get a source release, but that's not going to be instant.
Silly little stuff which I write to fulfil a silly little need of my own gets thrown out as free as a bird. It's cost me next to nothing and I'm happier for having a copy.
But what free license? BSD, every time. That way I'm contributing to the general library of code for all other programmers to use as they see fit. If I GPL it, I'm only doing that for GPL coders and I'd prefer to benefit the many once I've said I have no further use for a product.
Greg
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Depends on your perspective. From the point of view of someone who is not the original author (or the copyright holder, if they are not the same) then BSD is more free. You can do what you want with the code. But for the author/copyright holder, GPL has an advantage that noone can take your code and improve it without the changes being available to you.
If I were releasing code under a free licence, I would choose the GPL. If I were using someone elses code to incorporate into a commercial product, I'd prefer it be under the BSDL.
--
E_NOSIG
The difference is that nobody really gives a damn about the IP owned by RedHat or VA. Everything of actual value, the GPL code, will always remain available to to everyone. And since Redhat is actually adding value to it, by writing new code and producing a viable market for it, we all win by helping them out, whether we own stock or not. The relationship is symbiotic, rather than parasitical.
This is actually not a new idea. In fact, it's come up in converstaions with various folks for over a year by now. It started with some conversations which I had with Jim Gettys, who is widely credited as being the "father" of the X Windows system.
His basic observation was this: Many companies made various improvements to the X code, which they would keep as proprietary and give them a temporary edge in the marketplace. However, since the X code base was continually evolving, over time it became less attractive to maintain, since it would mean that they would have to be continually merging their changes into the evolving code base. Also, typically the advantage in having the proprietary new feature or speed enhancement typically degraded over time, since most companies are quite happy if it takes 18-24 months for their competitor to match a feature in their release.
So sometime later, the companies would very often donate their heretofore proprietary extension to the X consortium, which would then fold it into the public release of X. Jim Gettys' complaint about the GPL is that it by removing this ability for companies to recoup the investment needed to make major developmental improvements to Open Source code bases, companies don't have the incentive do this type of infrastructural improvements to GPL'ed projects.
Anyway, I had written up a more detailed writeup of my ideas, which I called the "Temporary Propietary License". I'd appreciate comments from folks as to what the think. Please note that I am not doctrinaire about licenses. Licenses are tools which software authors use to achieve certain goals, and nothing more. This is just one more tool which might be useful for certain projects.
The BSD license is free. period.
The GPL can better be defined as open source. What you do with the code is limited by a number of restrictions.
The GPL license believes in enforced community where you must give back your changes. You do not own the code The community does.
The BSD license relies on the possibility that some may return code because they will realize that if they give back, someone else will and the product will become better. It also recognizes that time is money and you may want to get paid for the extension of that code, through a proprietary offering. Each programmer owns his or her code. Despite that extension of the code becoming proprietary (or not, if they want), the original is still free.
What I do believe is that no license is better than another. Each has a particular purpose and mindset behind it. Use whichever meets your goals.
I don't think that anyone can deny that the GPL has a definite political agenda behind it.
The BSDL is fairly free of politics, at least to the extent that any human interaction can be.
Both are "free", for some definition of the word free. These arguments are purely political.
Human beings have argued over politics since Thuack the Caveman smacked Oog over the head for leadership of the tribe. We might as well argue Democrat versus Republican, or capitalist versus communist, or Throbbing Gristle versus SPK.
I didn't choose my OS based on the license. I chose it because it was the right tool for the job I do. I would be perfectly happy to have FreeBSD available under the GPL. I would be perfectly happy to have Linux available under the BSDL. Under either license, users return code to the project.
Either way, as an end-user, I get software that doesn't suck. It might not be great, all the time, but it doesn't suck.
Perhaps Slashdot should open a new section: Political License Flaming.
For one thing, any claim here is only as good as the definition of "freedom". When one group says the BSD licence is more free because it allows A, while another group says the GPL is more free because it allows B and A and B are mutually exclusive, something is definitly wrong.
The GPL limits some things you can do (I would stop long and hard before calling them freedoms), but I find that it usually does so for a good reason.
But on the other hand, I guess all that can be said about BSD vs. GPL (or vice versa) has been said. I would however like to add that BSD is the licence that allows others to make money off your code, and not the other way around. So, in the end, the only way to prevent this is to do it first. (Other's might feel different about this, but I wouldn't like it if other's could sell value-added versions of my program.)