You didn't said that it "confuses", but you did say - correctly - that it "refers to any or all of the following" and "sometimes also to". Then you mentioned copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets and trade names. All of which are governed by different laws, different usages and different rules. Which is way using the term "intelectual property" to assert some kind of supernatural right that is above, say, a license is a propaganda term.
Your definition is actually the same as the FSF:
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual property"---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about "copyright," or about "patents," or about "trademarks."
The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. You're reasonign about its use is different, which is fine. But to me using the word "intelectual property" is indeed many times a way to muddy the waters by refering to something that can encompass many different legal frameworks as a way to pass the impression that nothing can get in the way of it, including software licenses.
I'll have to make sure to add a clause to my software for that if RMS doesn't get around it first. Oh, the horror! You mean that the GPLv3 isn't a one-man world domination scheme imposed on poor, unable to know better developers, but that are people that actually agree with it and use if for their code because of that? Who would've guessed...
Here is program, here is the source and here is my bill for the work I have done... After you pay the bill you can do whatever the heck you want with the code, its yours. I'm not an expert but if you did it the other way around you would be perfectly following the GPL: you make the program - using GPL'ed code - and then sell it to someone. They pay, you give them the program (and the source, and the rights under the GPL, etc). If they don't pay, you don't give them the program, you didn't distribute anything. Now, by giving them the program before it can perhaps be different, but I don't think so: you are selling GPL'ed code, and it's common pratice to send the goods before receiving the money, but if they don't pay then they lose the right to use the code since they didn't fulfil they're part on the deal (hence, the distribution in voided). Selling GPL'ed code is not only allowed under the letter of the GPL, but also under the spirit of the GPL.
Is FSF going to sue me, or the company I work for... I make software with the following License agreement which is GPL 3 Incompatable. The FSF would perhaps sue you if you did something that breached GPL'ed code under the FSF assignment. Not before trying to work things out of course, that's the way 99% of GPL violations are dealt with.
Nobody who writes anything worthwhile likes it. Quite a vast generalization don't you think?
The GPLv3 is a steaming pile. (...)
The GPL basically means "if you use this body of code, whatever you contribute must be given out freely".
This is a great deal when what you contribute is of negligible value compared to the original codebase. So, you're objections are not only against the GPLv3, but to the GPL as a whole. Nothing wrong about that, it actually follows the pattern I've been seing so far.
"We" aren't doing this. Some companies are probably eager to do it, and then there are those around here whose major joy is bitching about the GPL, the FSF, RMS and his dog. For them everything that is unsavory to the FSF is a great joy, even if it affects everyone else - even free software developers using other licenses. They generally describe themselves as "open source" advocates but in reality they are the mirror image of the "anti-M$" crowd.
Fine. I'd dearly love to see the FSF sue Microsoft. Don't hold your breath, it's highly unlikely that Microsoft will use thir vouchers.
As I've already written, predicting the result is a fairly safe bet. It would be disastrous for both organisations, and it would be a Godsend for those of us who want open source to survive, but who see the FSF itself as potentially being institutionally just as tyrannical and harmful an influence ultimately as Microsoft themselves. Well, that's because you'r a Microsoft-hater and have a, er, "very personal" view on what "open source" is, to the point were anything that is vaguely unsavory for the FSF is a good idea to you even if it's something that would be detrimental to every free software developer out there. You're not an "open source" advocate, you're not even a BSD zealot on meth: you're simply a FSF hater with a weird fixation on RMS.
I quite passionately want to see both organisations entirely cease to exist, and a scenario where they could be encouraged to mutually destroy each other would be by far the most expedient means for bringing that end about. Cue the evil laughter.
Good post. Your characterization of the different value of the GPL and BSD license's for companies matches mine exactely: BSD great to take code from, GPL great to release closed source software to the public.
The rest of the post is also to the point. It's a shme moderators seem to have something against modding AC's.
You are describing your own interpretation of "Open Source" and attacking the FSF because apparently the GPLv3 doesn't conform to it.
Not even considering that the FSF as never used the term "Open Source" - and as actively distanced itself from it - you're description fails to cover BSD/X11/ISC type licenses, that don't require giving the source back to the community. You shouldn't narrow the world of free software to only GPL'ed covered code IMO.
As for being too restrictive, well, if you do find it that way there are many licenses out there that would surely be adequate for your needs. The GPL has *always* been more about a specific social goal than the promotion of a development methodology. That was clear from the onset, and made cleared with the GPLv2 and the anti-patent clauses it added. They too put further restrictions on the license as a way to achieve the desired goal.
Well, if any slippage occurs (which in this case I doubt) there is always GPLv4 to deal with it. People that like to attribute everything to RMS apparently forget that the spirit of the GPL is attractive to a large number of developers, the FSF is made and supported by a large number of people and that just because one disagrees with something doesn't mean that it is a one-man conspirancy devoided of any actual support.
There are restrictions, using the BSD license in the OSI page:
# Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. So some people might feel that their liberty is diminuished by having to retain copyright notices and putting disclaimers in their stuff. If absolute "freedom" - actually the ability to use something without any kind of restrition whatsoever - is paramount why doesn't the BSD community (whose contribution to free software is important) put their code in the Public Domain?
The rest of the GPL vs BSD license discussion has been done to death, just wanted to point out that restrictions exist in most free software licenses, it's the specific restrictions that make people prefer one or the other.
The GPL is really more of a social instrument than a software license
I agree with you here.
so for people like Stallman a BSD-style license (which is just one step above public domain and true freedom) would be unacceptable.
Here I disagree: it's not unaceptable at all, only less prefered. It's a free license, but lacks the "social instrument" provisions that you mentioned, but it *is* a free license nonetheless. From the FSF licences page:
If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to . The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing free software license that meets your needs. We try to list the most commonly encountered free software license on this page, but cannot list them all; we'll try our best to answer questions about free software licenses whether or not they are listed here.
Modified BSD license
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of "the BSD license", because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
From the What is Free Software page:
In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.
... and from the page concerning the BSD advertising clause problem:
We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all users,but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the free software community.
Of course, the FSF prefers and recommends the GPL: it's their license, made with a specific purpose. But I just don't see the confrontantional tone that would make the BSD/X11/ISC-type licenses "unacceptable".
As for the rest, you are of couse more than free to like or dislike RMS, the FSF or the GPL, I'm not trying to change that.
I see you were modded "Troll"... I must say I agree with you completely,/. discussions present a microcosm of antagonism that just doesn't exist in the real world. "Genuine discusion runs along the lines of friendly advocacy" indeed, that's my experience.
I understand that, I was just trying to kickstart the discussion. I can't believe I was modded flamebait for encouraging use of the GPL. Is this slashdot or have I slipped into a parallel universe?
Ehe, understood. Actually,/. has quite a vocal crowd which is rabidly against the GPL, the FSF, GNU, etc. This tendency as increased over the years and it's easily noticable. This is more a place for "open source" than free software in some regards...
Well, what you describe as a "problem" is really the intended goal... I understand your analysis but this discussion always ends up being the same. You don't see a problem with having your code used in proprietary applications, and that's great and all, but even it it surprises you other people do have a problem and use the GPL to guarantee a certain outcome. Corporations and individuals are more than free to not use the code in question if they don't think that they can follow the license or simply dislike it.
As for the commercial application of the GPL... well, I've seen more software released under the GPL from corporations than under a BSDish (free, non-copyleft with attribution) or PD license (free, non-copyleft, non-attribution) - especially applications that were closed... nowadays most major players not only have a good understanding of what the GPL means, they know how to either make money out of it or contribute to it. This was maybe a problem years ago, but not today, or at least not to the same extent. When it *is* a problem to someone generally it's exactely because that inconvenience was intended as part of the goal of using the license (like, say, someone being prevented from using a BSD license because they find the attribution clause "restrictive of their rights"... their inconvenience would be a direct result of one intended goal of the license).
Mind you, I've nothing against the BSD/MIT/ISC/PD/Apache/whatever license. I can understand why people would chose it, I just don't think the same way and have little concern about the intended inconveniences it may cause since they are part of the reason I prefer the GPL (exception here would be licensing some personal code under a BSD license to allow its use in a BSD OS, like in driver development).
I disagree... there are reasons for using the GPL (and both our emails indicate that we agree with them) but people shouldn't feel "forced" to use the GPL just to simplify things. While I do think that there are many redundant licenses (especially those akin to the BSD, like the ISC or MIT licenses) the choice should be made due to finding the license fitting. Also reducing choices could actually mean reducing the ammount of free software, since it's obvious that many talented and generous developers prefer a license like the BSD one.
I disagree with you in the hacker ethic part[1], although I can see your point. More importantly though is the fact that I agree with you and disagree with parent when he said "just use GPL". *I* am all for the GPL but can perfectly see why people would prefer some other license, especially a BSD/MIT/ISC one (free, non-copyleft with attribution). This "license proliferation" thing is not IMO something terrible. It can be a bit overkill, especially in the non-copyleft ones (many licenses ammount to the same with different wordings) but if people use them then clearly they have a good reason to exist. It should especially not be used as a way to promote "unification" around a single license: there are reasons for using the GPL, which I personally think are good ones, as there are reasons for using the BSD license, and that's all there is to it. Conditioning choice in the name of simplification is not the way to go at all.
[1] Pardon my laconic answer but I think that everyone is up-to-date in what regards the differences in perspective about the GPL and the BSD licenses from each "camp":)
In terms of the entire philosophical issue of "Free Software..." (are you listening here, FSF?)
Neurologically/socially NORMAL people DO. NOT. CARE.
People with girlfriends, people with families, people who live above ground...they see a computer purely as a convenience; a means of hopefully making their endlessly busy existence somewhat less busy. Being a member of the Stallmanite cult is the last thing they want. They want nothing other than a computer that works. That's great. You should probably had the NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD developers in you "are you listening" cry. Especially Theo, who apparently you consider a "isolated, disaffected freak" due to his insistence on thing that "socially NORMAL people" do not care.
I'm also interested in knowing how you managed to find a neurologically/socially NORMAL person to get your data from... I'm betting on kidnapping:)
Read closely here, people...because this more than in many other ways is the tyranny of Richard Stallman.
Yes, the tyranny, let's all gather around.
Said developers often actually want to make money themselves, but working on GPL licensed projects, feel as though socially speaking, they're not allowed to...
Utterly false.
so they work on something GPL licensed in order to be politically correct,
You paternalism is amazing... developers are senseless idiots who can't seem to chose a license by their own, they're "forced" by some invisible hand and, almost forgot, the tyranical forces of the Dark One. Seems like you have a low opinion on thousands of developers out there.
but because that isn't what they really want,
Yes, because as per you previous point they are idiots.
heaven help the poor soul who decides to attempt to capitalise on said code themselves.
More BS. At the present moment I would say that more people capitalise on GPL'ed software than BSD one, although only because of the ammount of code and Linux popularity.
As an idea, try contributing to a project under a non-GPL license,
Because for you the border is not in, say, non-free code and free one, copyleft or not, but between GPL and everything else. Interesting world view - although a rather lonely one, since BSD developers are not like that.
so that you can then not only contribute code of your own, but also sell the entire project outright if you so choose, in order to gain economic compensation.
Poohh pooh, here comes the clue train, last stop is you: the main problems concering the selling of the software are the same for any code added to a GPL or BSD project, especially so since as the author one is always allowed to change the license. BSD code also gives access to the source and reselling habilities to anyone else (as the GPL does) so in terms of "comercialization" the problems are the same for someone who volunteers code to a project.
By contributing to say, a BSD licensed project, you can both feel like you're doing the right thing, and receive economic compensation for it if you so choose, without any of the GPL's attendant legal complexities whatsoever.
As I said above, your main point is completely false, and now you're just throwing around adjectives and FUD. Wasn't expecting that from you:D
If you try using it, you'll discover for yourself that in practice, the BSD license is a better license.
Yes, because nobody knows about the BSD license or the other 10e234 free, non-copyleft license out there. And you're selling a license like it's a vintage automobile: it's a bloody license, and people know the main difference between copyleft, non-copyleft and strictly prorietary licenses by reading them, no need to "get the hang of them".
Fear however can be a very powerful motivator, and the GPL has fear on its' side.
Oh... the dark plot part, good.
Fear of Microsoft, fear of the legal system, fear of the rest of the corporate world. Fear, fear, and more fear. The GPL also has Stallman's army of cultists behind it, to socially/politically enforce its' use.
Yes, let's call them "The Enforcers": they surprise geeks in the basements ate night with flashlights and program their brains with a mind control device written in Emacs Lisp.
Think of how it would be if someone with a strong personality like Theo, but lacking the commitment to freedom, were to release something like openbsd under this license.)The only thing Theo lacks a commitment to in this context is being a member of Stallman's infernal cult
Ahahaha, damn, you're really a funny fellow. With pearls like this it is always a pleasure reading you, you're the HP Lovecraft of BSD zealots.
. "Freedom," in the FSF's usage of the word is a euphemism; you're free to do exactly what Stallman and/or his appointed mouthpieces say, and only what they say.
As in all your previous uninformed, demented ramblings I would ask from some specific supporting evidence, but I can appreciate that Faith is a powerful reason for some and will respect your right to write complete nonsense.
You're a brainwashed drone, as is anyone else who advocates the GPL while using the FSF's own terminology. If watching the contortions you have to go through in order to try and make the FSF's "logic" palatable wasn't so tragic, it'd be amusing...like watching a dog chasing its' tail.
There is nothing morally superior whatsoever about being a victim of mind control.
You are getting worse by the week, and I think you don't realise just how utterly ridiculous you sound... circular arguments, hyperboles, conspiracy theories... in fact reading you talk about "cults", "mind control" and "infernal cults" is a good insight on the mind of someone that has surrendered his reason to something. Honestely, this is reaching the point were your "point" doesn't even reach sympathetic hears due to sheer lunacy level that drips from your hate-filled sentences.
It's not really news. I don't think that Linus doesn't "like" Debian because of the install though... it's the whole "Debian GNU/Linux" that's probably the showstoper for him, i.e. the fact that Debian was (and is, in many regards) more directly linked with the FSF line.
Yes, I used DICE in the Amiga, it was nice, no doubt about it. It's sometimes hard to tell if something that I used back in that time was "free" since the concept of free most used was generally used to refer to freeware and shareware.
As for the GCC history, I do know it. One interesting thing that I aways found funny was when RMS found a " Free University Compiler" (can't remember the name of the Uni) and wrote to them to use it; the thing is, it was the University that was Free, not the compiler:).
Having said that, RMS *and* the FSF were instrumental in the the development of GCC as the first truely free (i.e. something GPL/BSD/MIT/ISC licenced, not neesseraly copyleft) ANSI C compiler. EGCS was a recent event (I remember it well), GCC was already widely used and loved before it, and doesn't really change the previous history of GCC or its importance... furthermore EGCS became the main GCC and its still developed as a GNU project.
As for the actual input of RMS in GCC or in other things, you are of course right in that he is one of many authors (fortunately!), and nowadays RMS doesn't really code much to my knowledge. One thing is important though: RMS *and others* did it at a time when few people were doing it, and as such bootstraped a process of common sharing and development. Hence his importance, even if he deosn't have a line of code in the current GCC. It's generally easier for people to join an already ongoing project than to start it by themselves.
Hate to tell you this but GCC wasn't the first free compiler. It wasn't even the first c compile.
Maybe not, but your examples don't seem to totally support that:)
There was the Small c compiler that dates back all the way to 1980.
That's correct, but the scope of Small C and GCC are, I think, a bit different... Small C was made for embeded systems and supports a subset of the C language. It was there, true, but GCC was the first ANSI C free compiler.
There was also the DICE compiler for the Amiga written by Matt Dillon of FireflyBSD fame that was from around the same time frame.
DICE was shareware (... I sold DICE as shareware and it quite unexpectedly generated a fair chunk of income. This allowed me to expand into later Amiga models (A3000) as well as put together some fairly souped up PC's (for the times), on which I ran Linux...). The source code has been made available (http://www.obviously.com/dice/) but that was in 1997, so quite recently comparing with GCC. I'm not even going into the DICE licence.
if RMS hadn't written GCC frankly I think Somebody would have like Matt Dillon maybe.
Sure. That can be said of anything ever done by anyone I think...
Slashdot Mirror
Your definition is actually the same as the FSF: Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as "intellectual property"---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about "copyright," or about "patents," or about "trademarks."
The term "intellectual property" carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property. When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. You're reasonign about its use is different, which is fine. But to me using the word "intelectual property" is indeed many times a way to muddy the waters by refering to something that can encompass many different legal frameworks as a way to pass the impression that nothing can get in the way of it, including software licenses.
This is a great deal when what you contribute is of negligible value compared to the original codebase. So, you're objections are not only against the GPLv3, but to the GPL as a whole. Nothing wrong about that, it actually follows the pattern I've been seing so far.
The press relase was an answer to Microsoft's own public press release. Seems that they apparently take it serously enough to make one...
"We" aren't doing this. Some companies are probably eager to do it, and then there are those around here whose major joy is bitching about the GPL, the FSF, RMS and his dog. For them everything that is unsavory to the FSF is a great joy, even if it affects everyone else - even free software developers using other licenses. They generally describe themselves as "open source" advocates but in reality they are the mirror image of the "anti-M$" crowd.
Good post. Your characterization of the different value of the GPL and BSD license's for companies matches mine exactely: BSD great to take code from, GPL great to release closed source software to the public.
The rest of the post is also to the point. It's a shme moderators seem to have something against modding AC's.
You are describing your own interpretation of "Open Source" and attacking the FSF because apparently the GPLv3 doesn't conform to it.
Not even considering that the FSF as never used the term "Open Source" - and as actively distanced itself from it - you're description fails to cover BSD/X11/ISC type licenses, that don't require giving the source back to the community. You shouldn't narrow the world of free software to only GPL'ed covered code IMO.
As for being too restrictive, well, if you do find it that way there are many licenses out there that would surely be adequate for your needs. The GPL has *always* been more about a specific social goal than the promotion of a development methodology. That was clear from the onset, and made cleared with the GPLv2 and the anti-patent clauses it added. They too put further restrictions on the license as a way to achieve the desired goal.
Well, if any slippage occurs (which in this case I doubt) there is always GPLv4 to deal with it. People that like to attribute everything to RMS apparently forget that the spirit of the GPL is attractive to a large number of developers, the FSF is made and supported by a large number of people and that just because one disagrees with something doesn't mean that it is a one-man conspirancy devoided of any actual support.
There are restrictions, using the BSD license in the OSI page: # Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. So some people might feel that their liberty is diminuished by having to retain copyright notices and putting disclaimers in their stuff. If absolute "freedom" - actually the ability to use something without any kind of restrition whatsoever - is paramount why doesn't the BSD community (whose contribution to free software is important) put their code in the Public Domain?
The rest of the GPL vs BSD license discussion has been done to death, just wanted to point out that restrictions exist in most free software licenses, it's the specific restrictions that make people prefer one or the other.
I agree with you here.
so for people like Stallman a BSD-style license (which is just one step above public domain and true freedom) would be unacceptable.
Here I disagree: it's not unaceptable at all, only less prefered. It's a free license, but lacks the "social instrument" provisions that you mentioned, but it *is* a free license nonetheless. From the FSF licences page:
If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the FSF by writing to . The proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing free software license that meets your needs. We try to list the most commonly encountered free software license on this page, but cannot list them all; we'll try our best to answer questions about free software licenses whether or not they are listed here. Modified BSD license
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of "the BSD license", because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.
This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.
From the What is Free Software page: In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But non-copylefted free software also exists. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is non-copylefted free software, we can still use it.
Of course, the FSF prefers and recommends the GPL: it's their license, made with a specific purpose. But I just don't see the confrontantional tone that would make the BSD/X11/ISC-type licenses "unacceptable".
As for the rest, you are of couse more than free to like or dislike RMS, the FSF or the GPL, I'm not trying to change that.
I see you were modded "Troll"... I must say I agree with you completely, /. discussions present a microcosm of antagonism that just doesn't exist in the real world. "Genuine discusion runs along the lines of friendly advocacy" indeed, that's my experience.
"This is my FOSS license. If you don't like it... well, I have others (999+, more exactly)".
(apologies to the Marx Brothers).
I understand that, I was just trying to kickstart the discussion. I can't believe I was modded flamebait for encouraging use of the GPL. Is this slashdot or have I slipped into a parallel universe?
/. has quite a vocal crowd which is rabidly against the GPL, the FSF, GNU, etc. This tendency as increased over the years and it's easily noticable. This is more a place for "open source" than free software in some regards...
Ehe, understood. Actually,
Well, what you describe as a "problem" is really the intended goal... I understand your analysis but this discussion always ends up being the same. You don't see a problem with having your code used in proprietary applications, and that's great and all, but even it it surprises you other people do have a problem and use the GPL to guarantee a certain outcome. Corporations and individuals are more than free to not use the code in question if they don't think that they can follow the license or simply dislike it.
As for the commercial application of the GPL... well, I've seen more software released under the GPL from corporations than under a BSDish (free, non-copyleft with attribution) or PD license (free, non-copyleft, non-attribution) - especially applications that were closed... nowadays most major players not only have a good understanding of what the GPL means, they know how to either make money out of it or contribute to it. This was maybe a problem years ago, but not today, or at least not to the same extent. When it *is* a problem to someone generally it's exactely because that inconvenience was intended as part of the goal of using the license (like, say, someone being prevented from using a BSD license because they find the attribution clause "restrictive of their rights"... their inconvenience would be a direct result of one intended goal of the license).
Mind you, I've nothing against the BSD/MIT/ISC/PD/Apache/whatever license. I can understand why people would chose it, I just don't think the same way and have little concern about the intended inconveniences it may cause since they are part of the reason I prefer the GPL (exception here would be licensing some personal code under a BSD license to allow its use in a BSD OS, like in driver development).
I disagree... there are reasons for using the GPL (and both our emails indicate that we agree with them) but people shouldn't feel "forced" to use the GPL just to simplify things. While I do think that there are many redundant licenses (especially those akin to the BSD, like the ISC or MIT licenses) the choice should be made due to finding the license fitting. Also reducing choices could actually mean reducing the ammount of free software, since it's obvious that many talented and generous developers prefer a license like the BSD one.
I disagree with you in the hacker ethic part[1], although I can see your point. More importantly though is the fact that I agree with you and disagree with parent when he said "just use GPL". *I* am all for the GPL but can perfectly see why people would prefer some other license, especially a BSD/MIT/ISC one (free, non-copyleft with attribution). This "license proliferation" thing is not IMO something terrible. It can be a bit overkill, especially in the non-copyleft ones (many licenses ammount to the same with different wordings) but if people use them then clearly they have a good reason to exist. It should especially not be used as a way to promote "unification" around a single license: there are reasons for using the GPL, which I personally think are good ones, as there are reasons for using the BSD license, and that's all there is to it. Conditioning choice in the name of simplification is not the way to go at all.
:)
[1] Pardon my laconic answer but I think that everyone is up-to-date in what regards the differences in perspective about the GPL and the BSD licenses from each "camp"
I'm also interested in knowing how you managed to find a neurologically/socially NORMAL person to get your data from... I'm betting on kidnapping
Why, hello again!
:D
Read closely here, people...because this more than in many other ways is the tyranny of Richard Stallman.
Yes, the tyranny, let's all gather around.
Said developers often actually want to make money themselves, but working on GPL licensed projects, feel as though socially speaking, they're not allowed to...
Utterly false.
so they work on something GPL licensed in order to be politically correct,
You paternalism is amazing... developers are senseless idiots who can't seem to chose a license by their own, they're "forced" by some invisible hand and, almost forgot, the tyranical forces of the Dark One. Seems like you have a low opinion on thousands of developers out there.
but because that isn't what they really want,
Yes, because as per you previous point they are idiots.
heaven help the poor soul who decides to attempt to capitalise on said code themselves.
More BS. At the present moment I would say that more people capitalise on GPL'ed software than BSD one, although only because of the ammount of code and Linux popularity.
As an idea, try contributing to a project under a non-GPL license,
Because for you the border is not in, say, non-free code and free one, copyleft or not, but between GPL and everything else. Interesting world view - although a rather lonely one, since BSD developers are not like that.
so that you can then not only contribute code of your own, but also sell the entire project outright if you so choose, in order to gain economic compensation.
Poohh pooh, here comes the clue train, last stop is you: the main problems concering the selling of the software are the same for any code added to a GPL or BSD project, especially so since as the author one is always allowed to change the license. BSD code also gives access to the source and reselling habilities to anyone else (as the GPL does) so in terms of "comercialization" the problems are the same for someone who volunteers code to a project.
By contributing to say, a BSD licensed project, you can both feel like you're doing the right thing, and receive economic compensation for it if you so choose, without any of the GPL's attendant legal complexities whatsoever.
As I said above, your main point is completely false, and now you're just throwing around adjectives and FUD. Wasn't expecting that from you
If you try using it, you'll discover for yourself that in practice, the BSD license is a better license.
Yes, because nobody knows about the BSD license or the other 10e234 free, non-copyleft license out there. And you're selling a license like it's a vintage automobile: it's a bloody license, and people know the main difference between copyleft, non-copyleft and strictly prorietary licenses by reading them, no need to "get the hang of them".
Fear however can be a very powerful motivator, and the GPL has fear on its' side.
Oh... the dark plot part, good.
Fear of Microsoft, fear of the legal system, fear of the rest of the corporate world. Fear, fear, and more fear. The GPL also has Stallman's army of cultists behind it, to socially/politically enforce its' use.
Yes, let's call them "The Enforcers": they surprise geeks in the basements ate night with flashlights and program their brains with a mind control device written in Emacs Lisp.
Think of how it would be if someone with a strong personality like Theo, but lacking the commitment to freedom, were to release something like openbsd under this license.) The only thing Theo lacks a commitment to in this context is being a member of Stallman's infernal cult
Ahahaha, damn, you're really a funny fellow. With pearls like this it is always a pleasure reading you, you're the HP Lovecraft of BSD zealots.
. "Freedom," in the FSF's usage of the word is a euphemism; you're free to do exactly what Stallman and/or his appointed mouthpieces say, and only what they say.
As in all your previous uninformed, demented ramblings I would ask from some specific supporting evidence, but I can appreciate that Faith is a powerful reason for some and will respect your right to write complete nonsense.
You're a brainwashed drone, as is anyone else who advocates the GPL while using the FSF's own terminology. If watching the contortions you have to go through in order to try and make the FSF's "logic" palatable wasn't so tragic, it'd be amusing...like watching a dog chasing its' tail. There is nothing morally superior whatsoever about being a victim of mind control.
You are getting worse by the week, and I think you don't realise just how utterly ridiculous you sound... circular arguments, hyperboles, conspiracy theories... in fact reading you talk about "cults", "mind control" and "infernal cults" is a good insight on the mind of someone that has surrendered his reason to something. Honestely, this is reaching the point were your "point" doesn't even reach sympathetic hears due to sheer lunacy level that drips from your hate-filled sentences.
As I said in another post I think that Linux objections to Debian is more a side effect of his dislike for anything with "GNU" on its name ;)
It's not really news. I don't think that Linus doesn't "like" Debian because of the install though... it's the whole "Debian GNU/Linux" that's probably the showstoper for him, i.e. the fact that Debian was (and is, in many regards) more directly linked with the FSF line.
Yes, I used DICE in the Amiga, it was nice, no doubt about it. It's sometimes hard to tell if something that I used back in that time was "free" since the concept of free most used was generally used to refer to freeware and shareware.
:).
As for the GCC history, I do know it. One interesting thing that I aways found funny was when RMS found a " Free University Compiler" (can't remember the name of the Uni) and wrote to them to use it; the thing is, it was the University that was Free, not the compiler
Having said that, RMS *and* the FSF were instrumental in the the development of GCC as the first truely free (i.e. something GPL/BSD/MIT/ISC licenced, not neesseraly copyleft) ANSI C compiler. EGCS was a recent event (I remember it well), GCC was already widely used and loved before it, and doesn't really change the previous history of GCC or its importance... furthermore EGCS became the main GCC and its still developed as a GNU project.
As for the actual input of RMS in GCC or in other things, you are of course right in that he is one of many authors (fortunately!), and nowadays RMS doesn't really code much to my knowledge. One thing is important though: RMS *and others* did it at a time when few people were doing it, and as such bootstraped a process of common sharing and development. Hence his importance, even if he deosn't have a line of code in the current GCC. It's generally easier for people to join an already ongoing project than to start it by themselves.
Maybe not, but your examples don't seem to totally support that
That's correct, but the scope of Small C and GCC are, I think, a bit different... Small C was made for embeded systems and supports a subset of the C language. It was there, true, but GCC was the first ANSI C free compiler. There was also the DICE compiler for the Amiga written by Matt Dillon of FireflyBSD fame that was from around the same time frame.
DICE was shareware (... I sold DICE as shareware and it quite unexpectedly generated a fair chunk of income. This allowed me to expand into later Amiga models (A3000) as well as put together some fairly souped up PC's (for the times), on which I ran Linux...). The source code has been made available (http://www.obviously.com/dice/) but that was in 1997, so quite recently comparing with GCC. I'm not even going into the DICE licence. if RMS hadn't written GCC frankly I think Somebody would have like Matt Dillon maybe.
Sure. That can be said of anything ever done by anyone I think...