The problem is not the technology of Linux, which seems to be quite good, but rather the licensing. The GNU GPL -- including the slightly altered version used by Linux -- is inappropriate for embedded work in that it requires the embedded systems developer to give away his source code. Any company that developed a "wireless Linux" -- that is, a Linux with special adaptations for wireless in the kernel -- would be forced to forfeit its hard work and make it available for free for use by competitors.
eCOS, which Red Hat also licenses and sells, has a slightly more developer-friendly license, but the full implications of the license are difficult to determine because it is so verbose and its requirements are very complex.
The best licensing -- the type that will let embedded developers rest easy at night without fear of lawsuits or unexpected repercussions -- is the simplest: a truly free license such as the Apache or MIT X license. A truly free license does not place any constraints on how you may use the code; the only constraints are on what you can do to the originator (e.g. you cannot sue him or her for bugs). Wasabi Systems (http://www.wasabisystems.com) adapts NetBSD, which uses a simple, truly free license, for embedded systems. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are also easily embeddable. These are the operating systems of choice for embedded work; they're high quality code and the license will not come back to bite you. Ever.
I've noticed, of late, that some people who are outraged that I've questioned the GPL -- the "Holy Writ," as it were -- have mischaracterized my views.
Let's set things straight here: I do not "loathe" the GPL. I do point out that the GPL is detrimental to developers' livelhoods (as Richard Stallman himself says; see The GNU Manifesto); that it was born out of irrational spite and mailice against commercial programmers and commercial software companies; that it hurts standardization by driving a wedge between commercial and non-commercial software developers; and that it threatens consumer choice by eliminating diversity. I have provided ample evidence for these effects in my many postings and articles. I believe that it is important for the open source community to recognize that the GPL is not a valid open source license, because it discriminates against a group of people (commercial developers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software. It should, instead, adopt truly free licenses such as the Apache License. Microsoft is by no means honorable, but it is actually correct on this point.
I dont think Mundie understands that alot of people (myself) dont give a *DAMN* about his-kind-of economics
...until you can't find a job that puts food on the table. Which is, I think, the real issue. The GPL is a "scorched earth" policy.... Yes, it has the potential to hurt Microsoft, but also to destroy ALL programmers' livelihoods and markets. We should be careful about trying to win a war with nuclear weapons.
While IBM has quite a few products based on the BSD family of operating systems and BSD-licensed code, Mr. Handy conspicuously fails to mention it. Hmmm.
What's more, according to IBM employees I know personally, IBMers who work with Linux have to attend a seminar that explains the GPL and warns them against contaminating the company's other code with GPLed code.
This suggests that IBM knows what it's doing. It is giving lip service to Linux and other GPLed software so as to ride the Linux PR wave, but is wisely using code that's licensed in a more business-friendly manner internally so as to avoid the GPL's "poison pill." (Did you know that the OS/2 TCP/IP stack shows the "fingerprint" of the Net/2 release of BSD?) IBM is clearly taking great pains not to allow the confiscatory provisions of the GPL to cause it to forfeit its intellectual property, while at the same time taking advantage of the Linux "buzz."
Mr. Handy's silence about BSD also suggests that IBM, like many companies, is using BSD as a "secret weapon" -- something that's seldom discussed publicly but which provides a big edge.
This is all understandable, but it's a shame. IBM and Mr. Handy really should give the BSDs the credit they deserve.
Actually, Dr. Demento makes a cameo appearance in the video of "Fish Heads." I'm not sure if he sings that line, but the voice does sound like it might be his.
software which OpenBSD
uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even
integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
In that case, how come OpenBSD uses and redistributes GCC -- and, in fact, an entire GPLed toolchain? The GPL prohibits the use of code which is licensed under it in commercial software, and hence does not meet Theo's criteria. So, why is GPLed code in OpenBSD?
I believe the Gnome base libraries are LGPL'd, actually
No, this is not correct. In a highly controversial edict, Richard Stallman dictated that the GNOME libraries be GPLed. This was shortly after he changed all references to the "Library GPL" to say "Lesser GPL" (shades of Orwell!) on the FSF Web site....
As I recall, Federal law states that work created by or for the US government is not covered by copyright. Therefore, the code would not be able to be GPLed, because the GPL requires a copyright!
GPLing the code is also bad policy because people should be able to use technology that's developed with their tax dollars for any purpose. The GPL prevents enterprising programmers from using the code in their own products and making money from those products. It therefore seems to me that DARPA should either NOT fund such a project or insist that the code that is generated be placed in the public domain -- or at least licensed under the BSD License or the MIT license. After all, it's our tax dollars.... None of us should be denied the use of the code.
Not many people seem to realize it, but BeOS uses GPLed drivers derived from Linux drivers. To avoid being forced to forfeit any reward for writing their very good OS, they make their drivers separate processes; the OS communicates with them via inter-process communications.
If the use mentioned in the story quoted above is contrary to the GPL, then one nasty side effect of this could be to kill Be.
I won't even get into the issue of what happens to programs that call the various GNOME libraries, all of which are GPLed.
--Brett Glass
Re:The Million MBA... er, lemming march
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 1
They're using the GPL as a business weapon.
The entire point of the GPL is to turn open source code, which is otherwise a good thing, into a weapon against programmers and their businesses. And small businesses are hurt the worst. You may make some money doing Samba-related programming in the short term, but in the long run you will hurt your entire profession as well as your long term prospects. I believe that it is unethical to hurt others who have done no harm, and so will not engage in such practices. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Samba *is* a business success, as there are many companies successfully depending on it to not only ship business product based upon it, but also many businesses
using it internally for their own purposes.
In that case, the air we breathe qualifies as a business success. There are many people successfully depending on it to not only ship business products based on it, but also many people using it internally for their own purposes.;-)
Seriously, Samba is not a business and therefore cannot qualify as a business success. It is, in fact, a business destroyer due to the fact that it propagates the GPL.
Programmers working on Samba can leverage this knowledge into high consulting rates and employee wages (trust me on this one:-).
So? What this means is that they cannot make money off of the code they actually generate, but only from a side business. What's more, they're on the consulting or employee treadmill. Programmers should be able to make money from what they do, not by being disk copiers, consultants, or janitors.
--Brett Glass
The Million MBA... er, lemming march
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 1
Where there are that many MBA's telling you you're wrong, don't you question what you're saying ?
Actually, if many MBAs were saying that (although I see no indication that MBAs are the ones making the decisions here; they seem to be driven by marketroids who do not understand business fundamentals), then I'd be even more confident that I was correct. It is possible to get an MBA without any practical business experience whatsoever, and the "instant" MBAs which are being churned out by our nation's night schools and community colleges are too often subject to fads. Hence the recent stock market bubble and implosion.
The GPL does destroy legitimate businesses. Mandrake and Eazel are two good examples. HP, IBM, et al are trying to leverage a fad; however, if they're smart, they will give lip service but not allow the GPL to jeopardize their markets or their intellectual property.
--Brett Glass
Re:Will the same thing happen to BSD
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 1
Readers who want a laugh can look up the old infoworld forums where Brett, a "journalist" at the time, had neglected to do his research and discover that Novell
had in fact shipped a GPL version of Samba several years previously before Brett was claiming that the GPL was preventing them from doing so....:-):-).
Jeremy, not only are you being rude but you're misrepresenting what I said. The GPL does not prevent anyone from shipping code. However, its stated purpose is to ensure that no programmer can be justly rewarded for his or her work. It also destroys legitimate businesses. The fact that HP and others are contributing code to Samba simply means that, like many businesses, they do not always recognize that their conduct is self-destructive. In time, I believe that it will be recognized that the GPL destroyed Mandrake and Eazel... and will likely soon destroy many other businesses as well. Stallman will be laughing.
What business success? Because Samba is GPLed, you cannot make money by licensing it! Therefore, Samba is not a business, much less a business success.
What is sad about Samba is that not only does it perpetuate the GPL but it also promotes the use of insecure proprietary protocols. Not a good thing.
With 33.8% US Market share, how can they be loosing money?
Let me tell you a classic story. One day, the two ethnic brothers decided to go into business selling watermelons. They got a truck, bought a truckload of watermelons at a dollar apiece, and then sold them in the marketplace at a dollar apiece. Their product sold like hotcakes; in fact, the brothers had cornered the market. After several loads of watermelons, they discovered that -- because of the expense of fuel for the truck -- they had not only failed to make money but had less than before.
"I told you, you idiot," said one ethnic brother to the other. "What we need is a larger truck."
--Brett Glass
Re:What can we do to stop this from happening agai
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 1
You write:
Um Brett, I am looking at your paragraph and nowhere inside it do I see that the GPL is "anti-programmer" or will hurt their wages. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are. Stallman says quite clearly that good wages for programmers should be "banned," and that they should resign themselves to coding for the fun of it and not for money. In the surrounding text, Stallman states that he will coerce them into doing this by destroying their ability to earn more and by eliminating competition in markets such as operating systems.
Have you ever contributed to either license?
Only if the license is itself a cancerous entity (as is the GPL) is one contributing to the license rather than the project. I contribute to projects, not licenses. And none of those projects produce code that is GPLed. I strongly believe that, because the GPL is the agent of a malicious vendetta, it is not ethical to use it on one's code or to contribute to any project that uses it. I further believe that code that is licensed under the GPL should be freed from this destructive and onerous license so as to be truly free. Unfortunately, yes, this will require rewriting unless the authors are willing. The duplication of effort will be wasteful, but alas the GPL has caused this waste. It would still be far less wasteful than forcing every programmer who wishes to make a fair living from his work to rewrite the same thing from scratch individually.
Let me tell you, if you wrote code you would think much differently.
You obviously don't know who I am or what I do. I write code daily. Your remark is not only pompous but misguided.
FYI: Actually, you can and quite possibly will. If it's under the GPL, that means that there will be no serious commercial development of the code, because the developer can make no money. Once a few more companies like Mandrake die, folks will realize what should have been obvious but was forgotten during the Linux/dotcom mania: the development of GPLed code is not a feasible business proposition. It was intended not to be a feasible business proposition from the start. The author said so himself.
--Brett Glass
Re:Will the same thing happen to BSD
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 1
You write:
I noticed that you've never posted the SEC filings of any BSD companies. Afraid of what you'll find?
Not at all. Wind River Systems just acquired BSDi. Their report is at http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/833829/00 0091205701511908/a2046174z10-k.htm. Notice that their report is cautious but nonetheless much more upbeat. The only risk factors they cite are those that would be due to a failure to compete vigorously. While they face many challenges, they need not face the overwhelming (and, I believe, insurmountable) hurdle of the GPL.
--Brett Glass
Re:What can we do to stop this from happening agai
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 1
You write:
You're half right. Everybody knows that the GPL makes Linux a pretty tough sell for most business, but the notion that it hurts the programmers is just moronic.
In that case, I guess that Mr. Richard Stallman, the author of the GPL, is moronic, since he stated that the intent of the GPL was to hurt programmers by preventing them from earning good wages. As he writes in The GNU Manifesto:
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhere else. They got many
kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work for a lot of money.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it.
Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.
You write:
For all intents and purposes, the BSD license is no better than closed source.
Absolutely the opposite is true. BSD-licensed code is the most open kind of open source, and next to the public domain the freest kind of free software.
You write:
There is nothing about the BSD license to keep a company from improving on BSD
code and not releasing their source.
Absolutely true. Which means that it is truly free. It can be used for any purpose without strings attached. Or a penalty. Or a "poison pill." This is true freedom.
--Brett Glass
FreeBSD lives; Walnut Creek and BSDi were bought
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 3
FreeBSD not only lives on but is a better no-cost OS than any Linux distribution I've used. As for Walnut Creek and BSDi: they were bought for big bucks by Wind River Systems. They're doing well.
--Brett Glass
I am Phaedrus, modded down for speaking the truth.
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
Would you believe that the posting above, which was not inflammatory and contained useful information, was modded down from 2 to 0 -- clearly out of religious zealotry? This really does suggest that one of the problems Eazel might have had was that it was blinded by religion.
Re:Last summer, Andy Hertzfeld got a standing ovat
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 1
There's a serious flaw in your logic. You assume one can't charge for GPLed products?
No, you can't. One can charge for creating copies, but not for the code itself. It's a common mistake to confuse this.... James Thurber, in a classic and very funny essay, called it "[mistaking] the thing contained for the container."
Remember, the recipient of GPLed code has the ability to give it away to anyone for free (not just via disks but by posting it on the Net for all to download). Yes, you can make a little money working as a disk copier, stamping out disks for those who do not wish to (or can't) download. But you're not making money as a programmer; you're making money as a CD stamper. And as high bandwidth connections to the Net become ubiquitous, who will buy CD-ROMs? Downloads will not only be cheaper but the code will be fresher. (The code on most CDs is obsolete by the time they are delivered.)
Programmers should not be forced to attempt to make money only from activities other than programming. Forcing them to live like ramoras -- scavengers that cling to a shark and get only the table scraps from its meals -- is unfair and demeaning. A good programmer should be able to license his work and be compensated for that work, rather than trying to make a tiny profit stamping out plastic with obsolte bits on it.
You write:
Red Hat made money every quarter until they started doing the Venture
Capital thing,
This is not correct. According to its financial statements, which are catalogued on the SEC's Edgar site, Red Hat has turned a profite during only one quarter in its entire history -- and that was before the Linux craze.
I am not sure why people find it so hard to accept that the GPL was designed to hurt businesses and programmers. Richard Stallman said so when he wrote the license. See his essay The GNU Manifesto for more.
--Brett Glass
Re:Last summer, Andy Hertzfeld got a standing ovat
on
Eazel Come, Eazel Go?
·
· Score: 2
I don't think free software versus proprietary software is really the issue here, they had no real plan to make money, at leastnot in the term that they needed it - they spent their 11 million before their file manager was even finished.
Actually, maybe religion is the issue here. (Note how my post two levels up from here was moderated down from 2 to 0 simply because it suggested that the GPL might not have been the best way to go!) My personal impression, after talking to them, is that Andy & Company were so swept away by ideology that they were blinded to the fact that they did not have a business plan.
GPL is the best license if you object to working for other people for free.
>
I do not understand how you could make this statement. By using the GPL, you are making it available to all end users of the code -- the overwhelming majority of the people and (yes) corporations who will ever see or use it -- for free. It seems to me that you are singling out and discriminating against only one vanishingly small group -- commercial programmers -- to exclude!
If you release your code to the public domain or under a less restrictive license you
are providing free labor to a corporation.
You are doing this if you use the GPL as well. You are providing your work to all corporations except to one very specific kind of individual or corporation: one that sells (or tries to sell) software as a way of making a living rather than using it in house. And, of these, you're most hurting not the large corporation (which can afford to rewrite things that have already been written) but the "little guy" -- the small developer without the staff, money, or time to do that. Someone like you. In what way is this a good thing?
If you do not want corporations to benefit from your work, but do want others to be able to, it seems to me that a different license (some form of "anti-corporate" license) would better fulfill your intent. Of course, discriminating against corporations as such might not accomplish your ends either. Some individuals incorporate, and there are corporations out there that are "good guys."
The only way the BSD license makes more sense than GPL for buisness reasons is if you're in the position of being the taking part, not the giving part.
Y'know, when you think about it, it's really the other way around. Using the GPL is not truly giving. By placing the GPL on your code you are placing onerous conditions upon its use by developers. In fact, it might well be said that when you publish code under the GPL, you're taking. You're destroying a developer's market while refusing to allow him to use what you've done and carry the technology still farther forward without forfeiting his work and his livelihood.
Publishing code under the BSD license, on the other hand, is truly giving. To everyone. Unconditionally. Which is what giving is about.
Slashdot Mirror
eCOS, which Red Hat also licenses and sells, has a slightly more developer-friendly license, but the full implications of the license are difficult to determine because it is so verbose and its requirements are very complex.
The best licensing -- the type that will let embedded developers rest easy at night without fear of lawsuits or unexpected repercussions -- is the simplest: a truly free license such as the Apache or MIT X license. A truly free license does not place any constraints on how you may use the code; the only constraints are on what you can do to the originator (e.g. you cannot sue him or her for bugs). Wasabi Systems (http://www.wasabisystems.com) adapts NetBSD, which uses a simple, truly free license, for embedded systems. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are also easily embeddable. These are the operating systems of choice for embedded work; they're high quality code and the license will not come back to bite you. Ever.
--Brett Glass
Brent Glass loathes the GPL.
I've noticed, of late, that some people who are outraged that I've questioned the GPL -- the "Holy Writ," as it were -- have mischaracterized my views.
Let's set things straight here: I do not "loathe" the GPL. I do point out that the GPL is detrimental to developers' livelhoods (as Richard Stallman himself says; see The GNU Manifesto); that it was born out of irrational spite and mailice against commercial programmers and commercial software companies; that it hurts standardization by driving a wedge between commercial and non-commercial software developers; and that it threatens consumer choice by eliminating diversity. I have provided ample evidence for these effects in my many postings and articles. I believe that it is important for the open source community to recognize that the GPL is not a valid open source license, because it discriminates against a group of people (commercial developers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software. It should, instead, adopt truly free licenses such as the Apache License. Microsoft is by no means honorable, but it is actually correct on this point.
What's more, according to IBM employees I know personally, IBMers who work with Linux have to attend a seminar that explains the GPL and warns them against contaminating the company's other code with GPLed code.
This suggests that IBM knows what it's doing. It is giving lip service to Linux and other GPLed software so as to ride the Linux PR wave, but is wisely using code that's licensed in a more business-friendly manner internally so as to avoid the GPL's "poison pill." (Did you know that the OS/2 TCP/IP stack shows the "fingerprint" of the Net/2 release of BSD?) IBM is clearly taking great pains not to allow the confiscatory provisions of the GPL to cause it to forfeit its intellectual property, while at the same time taking advantage of the Linux "buzz."
Mr. Handy's silence about BSD also suggests that IBM, like many companies, is using BSD as a "secret weapon" -- something that's seldom discussed publicly but which provides a big edge.
This is all understandable, but it's a shame. IBM and Mr. Handy really should give the BSDs the credit they deserve.
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
No, this is not correct. In a highly controversial edict, Richard Stallman dictated that the GNOME libraries be GPLed. This was shortly after he changed all references to the "Library GPL" to say "Lesser GPL" (shades of Orwell!) on the FSF Web site....
--Brett
GPLing the code is also bad policy because people should be able to use technology that's developed with their tax dollars for any purpose. The GPL prevents enterprising programmers from using the code in their own products and making money from those products. It therefore seems to me that DARPA should either NOT fund such a project or insist that the code that is generated be placed in the public domain -- or at least licensed under the BSD License or the MIT license. After all, it's our tax dollars.... None of us should be denied the use of the code.
--Brett Glass
If the use mentioned in the story quoted above is contrary to the GPL, then one nasty side effect of this could be to kill Be.
I won't even get into the issue of what happens to programs that call the various GNOME libraries, all of which are GPLed.
--Brett Glass
The entire point of the GPL is to turn open source code, which is otherwise a good thing, into a weapon against programmers and their businesses. And small businesses are hurt the worst. You may make some money doing Samba-related programming in the short term, but in the long run you will hurt your entire profession as well as your long term prospects. I believe that it is unethical to hurt others who have done no harm, and so will not engage in such practices. Your mileage may vary, of course.
--Brett Glass
Seriously, Samba is not a business and therefore cannot qualify as a business success. It is, in fact, a business destroyer due to the fact that it propagates the GPL.
Programmers working on Samba can leverage this knowledge into high consulting rates and employee wages (trust me on this one :-).
So? What this means is that they cannot make money off of the code they actually generate, but only from a side business. What's more, they're on the consulting or employee treadmill. Programmers should be able to make money from what they do, not by being disk copiers, consultants, or janitors.
--Brett Glass
Actually, if many MBAs were saying that (although I see no indication that MBAs are the ones making the decisions here; they seem to be driven by marketroids who do not understand business fundamentals), then I'd be even more confident that I was correct. It is possible to get an MBA without any practical business experience whatsoever, and the "instant" MBAs which are being churned out by our nation's night schools and community colleges are too often subject to fads. Hence the recent stock market bubble and implosion.
The GPL does destroy legitimate businesses. Mandrake and Eazel are two good examples. HP, IBM, et al are trying to leverage a fad; however, if they're smart, they will give lip service but not allow the GPL to jeopardize their markets or their intellectual property.
--Brett Glass
Jeremy, not only are you being rude but you're misrepresenting what I said. The GPL does not prevent anyone from shipping code. However, its stated purpose is to ensure that no programmer can be justly rewarded for his or her work. It also destroys legitimate businesses. The fact that HP and others are contributing code to Samba simply means that, like many businesses, they do not always recognize that their conduct is self-destructive. In time, I believe that it will be recognized that the GPL destroyed Mandrake and Eazel... and will likely soon destroy many other businesses as well. Stallman will be laughing.
--Brett Glass
What business success? Because Samba is GPLed, you cannot make money by licensing it! Therefore, Samba is not a business, much less a business success.
What is sad about Samba is that not only does it perpetuate the GPL but it also promotes the use of insecure proprietary protocols. Not a good thing.
--Brett Glass
Let me tell you a classic story. One day, the two ethnic brothers decided to go into business selling watermelons. They got a truck, bought a truckload of watermelons at a dollar apiece, and then sold them in the marketplace at a dollar apiece. Their product sold like hotcakes; in fact, the brothers had cornered the market. After several loads of watermelons, they discovered that -- because of the expense of fuel for the truck -- they had not only failed to make money but had less than before.
"I told you, you idiot," said one ethnic brother to the other. "What we need is a larger truck."
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
You write:
Absolutely the opposite is true. BSD-licensed code is the most open kind of open source, and next to the public domain the freest kind of free software.You write:
Absolutely true. Which means that it is truly free. It can be used for any purpose without strings attached. Or a penalty. Or a "poison pill." This is true freedom.--Brett Glass
--Brett Glass
Would you believe that the posting above, which was not inflammatory and contained useful information, was modded down from 2 to 0 -- clearly out of religious zealotry? This really does suggest that one of the problems Eazel might have had was that it was blinded by religion.
Remember, the recipient of GPLed code has the ability to give it away to anyone for free (not just via disks but by posting it on the Net for all to download). Yes, you can make a little money working as a disk copier, stamping out disks for those who do not wish to (or can't) download. But you're not making money as a programmer; you're making money as a CD stamper. And as high bandwidth connections to the Net become ubiquitous, who will buy CD-ROMs? Downloads will not only be cheaper but the code will be fresher. (The code on most CDs is obsolete by the time they are delivered.)
Programmers should not be forced to attempt to make money only from activities other than programming. Forcing them to live like ramoras -- scavengers that cling to a shark and get only the table scraps from its meals -- is unfair and demeaning. A good programmer should be able to license his work and be compensated for that work, rather than trying to make a tiny profit stamping out plastic with obsolte bits on it.
You write:
This is not correct. According to its financial statements, which are catalogued on the SEC's Edgar site, Red Hat has turned a profite during only one quarter in its entire history -- and that was before the Linux craze.I am not sure why people find it so hard to accept that the GPL was designed to hurt businesses and programmers. Richard Stallman said so when he wrote the license. See his essay The GNU Manifesto for more.
--Brett Glass
--Brett
If you do not want corporations to benefit from your work, but do want others to be able to, it seems to me that a different license (some form of "anti-corporate" license) would better fulfill your intent. Of course, discriminating against corporations as such might not accomplish your ends either. Some individuals incorporate, and there are corporations out there that are "good guys."
--Brett Glass
Publishing code under the BSD license, on the other hand, is truly giving. To everyone. Unconditionally. Which is what giving is about.
--Brett Glass