If you assume that everyone has a right to any code, the GPL is irellevant, and thus unecessary. If you assume they don't have a right to any code that isn't theirs or provided to them then the GPL is still worse than the BSD because you aren't having code provided to you, you're having it forced out. Either way, the GPL is a failure in it's ultimate goal which is to have free code unemcumbered by copyrights and patents.
Like I said, if you want to use the GPL, I don't really give a damn. I think it's worthless and more harmful than good, and I know that it works entirely against it's own goals by placing code under the very system it tries to defeat and eliminate.
If you want to use it fine, but don't tell me it's because you're promoting "free" code because your code isn't free. You're still guarding it with your copyrights the same way a proprietary developer does. The difference is, your price is code, theirs is measurable in dollar amounts.
But the analogy still fails because I CAN"T TAKE CODE OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
The reason why 6 kids 5 toys is a discrepancy is because 6 kids can't play with 5 toys. But 6 developers CAN play with 5 pieces of code. In fact, 6 developers can play with 1 piece of code without ever talking to each other.
The analogy is better described as 5 kids, 5 different infinite toys becoming 6 kids with 5 different infinite toys.
Your sand box analogy further falls apart when you talk about kids with no toys. Should they be excluded? You still get 6 kids and 5 toys.
Yes, the BSD one is more free. There is NOTHING that the GPL permits that the BSD license does not permit. However, there is something the BSD license permits that the GPL does not permit.
The GPL requires a trade of freedoms to use GPL software as a developer. You trade your freedom to release a program in a manner you see fit in order to gain the freedom to use the code.
The BSD license requires no trades of freedom to gain the freedom to use the code.
In short, the BSD license provides people the freedom to look at code, and then the freedom to do as they would like with the code and the freedom to choose whether one will extend those same freedoms to the code one writes.
As I said elsewhere, the GPL is just another form of patents and copyrights, the same thing that the GPL camp routinely decries.
No. The point of sharing in the sand box is that everyone gets to satisfy their selfish desires to have what someone else has. It has nothing to do with the number of toys except in so far as the number is limited and decreases as one person plays with a toy. It's not the same for code.
No the analogy doesn't stand. The reason we forbid killing is that killing expressly removes someone's pre-existing freedoms and rights. By not releasing the source of my own code, I have not done either, unless you are arguing that people inherrently have a right to my code, in which case the GPL is moot because I have a right to your code regardless of your terms.
A much better analogy than yours would be if you own a soap box, and from your soapbox you espouse the ideas of freedom of speech on private soap boxes, but you deny anyone in the KKK access to your soapbox because they don't believe in freedom of speech on private soapboxes. The end result (and truth) is that you don't believe in freedom of speech for all on private soapboxes, you believe in it for those that subscribe to your world view. Even then the analogy is flawed, but it's a better analogy none the less.
And to tell the truth, the end result is neither more nor less freedom because while my code is now availible, it is now restricted by the GPL and thus unfree. The end result is neith positive nor negative. It's static.
That's my point though. The GPL isn't about freeing code, it's just another form of patents and copyrights. GPL code is neither free as in beer nor free as in speech. And for a lot of people, the cost is too high.
ESR's point is that the GPL and it's high costs are unnecessary since open source and active participation is inherrently a superior model, and that the use of GPL marginalizes your software rather than making it more open and accepted.
The difference is with killing someone I take away their freedom.
With code, if I release a closed source version of a program, I take no one's freedom because no one has the freedom to access my ideas if I chose to keep them a secret. And yet at the same time, the old code which they were free to look at, they are still free to look at.
However, those who find that freedoms are worth having do not actively try to take those freedoms from those who do not subscribe to the same ideals.
Software patents prevent me from deriving from covered code, and so does the GPL if I don't want to follow their rules. The GPL is no better than a software patent. The difference is, instead of money, the price is my labor.
If you didn't want me using your code, you shouldn't have made it freely availible. Freedom is freedom is freedom. Don't give me bullshit about how your code is free and open and then proceede to dictate to me how to use your code.
Except they aren't keeping their code closed. They made it open.
Furthermore, your analogy is flawed because if I play with X persons toy, but don't let anyone play with mine, there are less toys overall. With code, if I use your code, that doesn't make your code less free.
But the terms don't make sense. Consider. If I take a GPL project, and without doing ANYTHING to it, start shipping it to people, I'm fine as long as I give them access to your code. However, the moment I add even one line of my code to this project, I'm now in violation of the GPL for doing this. Note that nothing has changed. Your code is still open, it's still free and I'm still providing access to it. I'm just closing MY code. But somehow you claim that because I use code that's freely availible, you now have a right to dictate how I distribute MY code. I'm still distributing YOUR code exactly as you want. But now you're dictating the use of MY code.
You don't get it do you? The rules you're setting are marginalizing yourself. That's what ESR is saying. Open source is the inherrently superior model, and the use of the GPL to force additional rules down people's throats maginalizes GPL software and thus a large segment of Open Source software. What good are your rules if no one is playing? Think about it. By the nature of opensource, any company who uses an open source implimentation and doesn't keep an open dialouge with developers is marginalizing themselves. But with the GPL you're pushing them away from ever using it in the first place.
You're right, windows machines did exist on the net before windows 95. So did personal computers. So too did web browsers. Now consider that before 95 or so, personal computers still weren't all that big in the main stream. Today, 90% of the computers online are windows computers. 80% of the broswers are MS IE. If microsoft couldn't take BSD, ask yourself, would 99% of the computers use the BSD TCP/IP implimentation or a variation thereof?
Defacto standards are entirely the topic. GPL is pushing people away from certain open source projects, which means those projects don't get used, which means they have less chance of becoming the standard. Which means a higher chance for a random proprietary project to become standard.
In short, the GPL works against it's stated goals.
Both are freeloaders. Dev 2 is a freeloader because he wants to use someone elses work with no compensation to Dev 1 (though to be fair, Dev 1 was stupid enough to release his code to the world)
Dev 1 is a freeloader because he's too lazy to do his own improvements and development with his code and wants access to everyone elses work just because he decided to be a nice guy and put his work ou tin public (though to be fair, Dev 2 did use his code)
In short they're both a bunch of freeloaders expecting other people to do work for them and for no compensation.
I'm not combative at all, just sick to death of hearing people who release their code bitch about people using their code.
And they are using something else. Which is ESRs point. The GPL is hurting OSS because people are going somewhere else, and many times in the cases of corporations, they're going to internal designs. In sort, the GPL is actively encouraging people to fragment and reinvent the wheel.
My point is microsoft gets to set defacto standards because of their size (see browser compatibility) and if you think for a moment that microsoft using the BSD stack didn't smooth things over for the net considerably you're deluding yourself.
But it doesn't belong to me because they are now dictating what I can and can't do with my code. Just because I use your code doesn't mean that what I've written isn't my code. Why should I have to open up my code when I distribute a package with both of our codes in it? Your code is already open so I'm not locking anyone out of anything except my own code.
And yet somehow you think that because you wrote some piece of code that you should be instantly entitled to the work that someone else puts in to making your code better. Can we say "Greedy motherfucker"
Slashdot Mirror
If you assume that everyone has a right to any code, the GPL is irellevant, and thus unecessary. If you assume they don't have a right to any code that isn't theirs or provided to them then the GPL is still worse than the BSD because you aren't having code provided to you, you're having it forced out. Either way, the GPL is a failure in it's ultimate goal which is to have free code unemcumbered by copyrights and patents.
Like I said, if you want to use the GPL, I don't really give a damn. I think it's worthless and more harmful than good, and I know that it works entirely against it's own goals by placing code under the very system it tries to defeat and eliminate.
If you want to use it fine, but don't tell me it's because you're promoting "free" code because your code isn't free. You're still guarding it with your copyrights the same way a proprietary developer does. The difference is, your price is code, theirs is measurable in dollar amounts.
But the analogy still fails because I CAN"T TAKE CODE OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
The reason why 6 kids 5 toys is a discrepancy is because 6 kids can't play with 5 toys. But 6 developers CAN play with 5 pieces of code. In fact, 6 developers can play with 1 piece of code without ever talking to each other.
The analogy is better described as 5 kids, 5 different infinite toys becoming 6 kids with 5 different infinite toys.
Your sand box analogy further falls apart when you talk about kids with no toys. Should they be excluded? You still get 6 kids and 5 toys.
Yes, the BSD one is more free. There is NOTHING that the GPL permits that the BSD license does not permit. However, there is something the BSD license permits that the GPL does not permit.
The GPL requires a trade of freedoms to use GPL software as a developer. You trade your freedom to release a program in a manner you see fit in order to gain the freedom to use the code.
The BSD license requires no trades of freedom to gain the freedom to use the code.
In short, the BSD license provides people the freedom to look at code, and then the freedom to do as they would like with the code and the freedom to choose whether one will extend those same freedoms to the code one writes.
As I said elsewhere, the GPL is just another form of patents and copyrights, the same thing that the GPL camp routinely decries.
No. The point of sharing in the sand box is that everyone gets to satisfy their selfish desires to have what someone else has. It has nothing to do with the number of toys except in so far as the number is limited and decreases as one person plays with a toy. It's not the same for code.
No the analogy doesn't stand. The reason we forbid killing is that killing expressly removes someone's pre-existing freedoms and rights. By not releasing the source of my own code, I have not done either, unless you are arguing that people inherrently have a right to my code, in which case the GPL is moot because I have a right to your code regardless of your terms.
A much better analogy than yours would be if you own a soap box, and from your soapbox you espouse the ideas of freedom of speech on private soap boxes, but you deny anyone in the KKK access to your soapbox because they don't believe in freedom of speech on private soapboxes. The end result (and truth) is that you don't believe in freedom of speech for all on private soapboxes, you believe in it for those that subscribe to your world view. Even then the analogy is flawed, but it's a better analogy none the less.
And to tell the truth, the end result is neither more nor less freedom because while my code is now availible, it is now restricted by the GPL and thus unfree. The end result is neith positive nor negative. It's static.
That's my point though. The GPL isn't about freeing code, it's just another form of patents and copyrights. GPL code is neither free as in beer nor free as in speech. And for a lot of people, the cost is too high.
ESR's point is that the GPL and it's high costs are unnecessary since open source and active participation is inherrently a superior model, and that the use of GPL marginalizes your software rather than making it more open and accepted.
If I am competing with a proprietary version of my own work, my own work must not be sufficient enough.
The difference is with killing someone I take away their freedom.
With code, if I release a closed source version of a program, I take no one's freedom because no one has the freedom to access my ideas if I chose to keep them a secret. And yet at the same time, the old code which they were free to look at, they are still free to look at.
It doesn't die in a truely free license either. However, the GPL actively works to against the goals of real freedom.
However, those who find that freedoms are worth having do not actively try to take those freedoms from those who do not subscribe to the same ideals.
Software patents prevent me from deriving from covered code, and so does the GPL if I don't want to follow their rules. The GPL is no better than a software patent. The difference is, instead of money, the price is my labor.
If you didn't want me using your code, you shouldn't have made it freely availible. Freedom is freedom is freedom. Don't give me bullshit about how your code is free and open and then proceede to dictate to me how to use your code.
Except they aren't keeping their code closed. They made it open.
Furthermore, your analogy is flawed because if I play with X persons toy, but don't let anyone play with mine, there are less toys overall. With code, if I use your code, that doesn't make your code less free.
"it grants rights"
IOW, it's not free.
Freedom is freedom. Unconditional, unrestricted. Consequences? Yes. Restrictions? No. And there is a difference
That is besides the point, what gives you the right to demand my code from me?
But the terms don't make sense. Consider. If I take a GPL project, and without doing ANYTHING to it, start shipping it to people, I'm fine as long as I give them access to your code. However, the moment I add even one line of my code to this project, I'm now in violation of the GPL for doing this. Note that nothing has changed. Your code is still open, it's still free and I'm still providing access to it. I'm just closing MY code. But somehow you claim that because I use code that's freely availible, you now have a right to dictate how I distribute MY code. I'm still distributing YOUR code exactly as you want. But now you're dictating the use of MY code.
You don't get it do you? The rules you're setting are marginalizing yourself. That's what ESR is saying. Open source is the inherrently superior model, and the use of the GPL to force additional rules down people's throats maginalizes GPL software and thus a large segment of Open Source software. What good are your rules if no one is playing? Think about it. By the nature of opensource, any company who uses an open source implimentation and doesn't keep an open dialouge with developers is marginalizing themselves. But with the GPL you're pushing them away from ever using it in the first place.
You're right, windows machines did exist on the net before windows 95. So did personal computers. So too did web browsers. Now consider that before 95 or so, personal computers still weren't all that big in the main stream. Today, 90% of the computers online are windows computers. 80% of the broswers are MS IE. If microsoft couldn't take BSD, ask yourself, would 99% of the computers use the BSD TCP/IP implimentation or a variation thereof?
Defacto standards are entirely the topic. GPL is pushing people away from certain open source projects, which means those projects don't get used, which means they have less chance of becoming the standard. Which means a higher chance for a random proprietary project to become standard.
In short, the GPL works against it's stated goals.
He's the dumbass that released his 10,000 lines of code to the public.
Both are freeloaders. Dev 2 is a freeloader because he wants to use someone elses work with no compensation to Dev 1 (though to be fair, Dev 1 was stupid enough to release his code to the world)
Dev 1 is a freeloader because he's too lazy to do his own improvements and development with his code and wants access to everyone elses work just because he decided to be a nice guy and put his work ou tin public (though to be fair, Dev 2 did use his code)
In short they're both a bunch of freeloaders expecting other people to do work for them and for no compensation.
I'm not combative at all, just sick to death of hearing people who release their code bitch about people using their code.
And they are using something else. Which is ESRs point. The GPL is hurting OSS because people are going somewhere else, and many times in the cases of corporations, they're going to internal designs. In sort, the GPL is actively encouraging people to fragment and reinvent the wheel.
My point is microsoft gets to set defacto standards because of their size (see browser compatibility) and if you think for a moment that microsoft using the BSD stack didn't smooth things over for the net considerably you're deluding yourself.
So if blender were released under a BSD license you would have had to pay thousands of dollars for it?
But it doesn't belong to me because they are now dictating what I can and can't do with my code. Just because I use your code doesn't mean that what I've written isn't my code. Why should I have to open up my code when I distribute a package with both of our codes in it? Your code is already open so I'm not locking anyone out of anything except my own code.
Why should "free" libraries have any strings attached? How does that promote open development?
And yet somehow you think that because you wrote some piece of code that you should be instantly entitled to the work that someone else puts in to making your code better. Can we say "Greedy motherfucker"