"They're not demanding tha GPL authors re-release their code under the BSD (though that would be nice, and the fair thing to do), rather they don't want the GPL authors stripping the code of the BSDL, removing their names and copyrights, attributions, etc... required by the BSDL."
Of course the original authors should be credited, but this sounds more like an innocent slip on someone's part, so that continuing to pick on this issue seems a bit odd unless someone refuses to fix the problem. Why are people up in arms about something that's already fixed? This looks like an overhyped controversy.
My point is Theo made this out to be a bigger issue than what it might be. An ethical failing, if you will, for GPL developers not to share back improvements to a BSD team. Your take on this situation seems to differ from his, as he seems to be beyond the point of merely asking for a nice favor, he's trying to push for something that's really out of the bounds of the license he chose. He doesn't want to force people to share back... except in this case? Well, if those exceptions are so inconvenient, he really should codify them into his license. If he really wrote a license the way he really feels about it, I don't think he would wind up with BSDL.
So I was just providing a fun and helpful suggestion. Do all future work in GPL, and integration with the world's largest free codebase will be a snap. He won't have to worry about duplicated effort in his projects if he switches over. He'll be able to cherry pick the best ideas out of GPL code, and do them one better, and make it easier to bring the broad driver support that Linux enjoys to his OS. It'll be a more level playing field.
Aw, come on Theo, you know you want to... *dangles license invitingly*
"Very often I would like to do some integration in the lab, and supply the result to the customer. But the powers-that-be will not let me."
Well then that's not a limitation of the GPL, that's a limitation of the powers-that-be. You see, most legal analysis is done based on prior decisions in case law, and case law changes glacially compared to computing standards. Basing a decision on something other than previous judgments is risky and requires "vision". So, if there is no really big person around willing to step up and take it on the chin, legal advisors will always be behind the curve. On the other hand, as more case law piles up supporting GPL's legal protections, there could be a sudden avalanche of legal consultants willing to advise in its favor, since it won't be so risky.
In this case (the wireless driver), the GPL developers do fully intend to distribute, because that's the point of having a hardware driver, to allow the public to use the hardware they paid for.
So what prevents these same corporations from integrating GPL code? For example, what prevents Google from using GPL'ed code in their servers? Are you saying they can't keep their proprietary code separate? Prove that BSD is the only tool for that job.
I would suggest to Theo that if he wants those GPL slackers to
give back to the BSD community and not run roughshod over the
BSD license that he add a simple provision that forces the
miscreants to give back their improvements.
In fact, in the interest of sharing hard work freely with others, I
happen to have a draft copy of what such a license would look like
right here.
P.S.
The license shown even encourages non-GPL borrowers to keep
their code open, all for the same low price.
The biggest differences between this and some other low-power laptop (15W) is:
Open source from the ground up, based on fedora core 6.
Open firmware.
It was going to have a hand crank to power it, which would have kept battery disposal from becoming a problem, but that idea was dropped. It's still neat in the sense that it accepts a wider voltage range than anything I've ever seen, but if the battery fails, replacing it will be a major cost for some people.
Agressive power management.
Includes a 640x480 video camera. (If this had a hand crank, it would have a calling as "field equipment".)
No hard disk, only 1G of flash.
Privacy issues?
One of the most surprising things is this, from
here.
As a matter of practicality and given the necessity to enhance performance and reliability while containing costs, XO is not burdened by the bloat of excess code, the "featureitis" that is responsible for much of the clumsiness, unreliability, and expense of many modern laptops. XO will start up in an instant and move briskly through its operations. We accomplish this by focusing on only those features that children need for learning.
If true, there's hope that this thing will compare favorably to its competition, which probably doesn't share this philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
"They're not demanding tha GPL authors re-release their code under the BSD (though that would be nice, and the fair thing to do), rather they don't want the GPL authors stripping the code of the BSDL, removing their names and copyrights, attributions, etc... required by the BSDL."
Of course the original authors should be credited, but this sounds more like an innocent slip on someone's part, so that continuing to pick on this issue seems a bit odd unless someone refuses to fix the problem. Why are people up in arms about something that's already fixed? This looks like an overhyped controversy.
My point is Theo made this out to be a bigger issue than what it might be. An ethical failing, if you will, for GPL developers not to share back improvements to a BSD team. Your take on this situation seems to differ from his, as he seems to be beyond the point of merely asking for a nice favor, he's trying to push for something that's really out of the bounds of the license he chose. He doesn't want to force people to share back... except in this case? Well, if those exceptions are so inconvenient, he really should codify them into his license. If he really wrote a license the way he really feels about it, I don't think he would wind up with BSDL.
So I was just providing a fun and helpful suggestion. Do all future work in GPL, and integration with the world's largest free codebase will be a snap. He won't have to worry about duplicated effort in his projects if he switches over. He'll be able to cherry pick the best ideas out of GPL code, and do them one better, and make it easier to bring the broad driver support that Linux enjoys to his OS. It'll be a more level playing field.
Aw, come on Theo, you know you want to... *dangles license invitingly*
"Very often I would like to do some integration in the lab, and supply the result to the customer. But the powers-that-be will not let me."
Well then that's not a limitation of the GPL, that's a limitation of the powers-that-be. You see, most legal analysis is done based on prior decisions in case law, and case law changes glacially compared to computing standards. Basing a decision on something other than previous judgments is risky and requires "vision". So, if there is no really big person around willing to step up and take it on the chin, legal advisors will always be behind the curve. On the other hand, as more case law piles up supporting GPL's legal protections, there could be a sudden avalanche of legal consultants willing to advise in its favor, since it won't be so risky.
In this case (the wireless driver), the GPL developers do fully intend to distribute, because that's the point of having a hardware driver, to allow the public to use the hardware they paid for.
So what prevents these same corporations from integrating GPL code? For example, what prevents Google from using GPL'ed code in their servers? Are you saying they can't keep their proprietary code separate? Prove that BSD is the only tool for that job.
I would suggest to Theo that if he wants those GPL slackers to give back to the BSD community and not run roughshod over the BSD license that he add a simple provision that forces the miscreants to give back their improvements.
In fact, in the interest of sharing hard work freely with others, I happen to have a draft copy of what such a license would look like right here.
P.S.
The license shown even encourages non-GPL borrowers to keep their code open, all for the same low price.
The biggest differences between this and some other low-power laptop (15W) is:
One of the most surprising things is this, from here.
If true, there's hope that this thing will compare favorably to its competition, which probably doesn't share this philosophy.