Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 14:39:20 -0400 From: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on advocacy (was: Slashdot ftp.cdrom.com upgra Message-ID: <372C9BD8.5C24D091@confusion.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905022333100.7536-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I Have to disagree with one key point here. Not to say that you can't make
money on the GPL, or that it isnt successful in general, but I think it's fair
to say it fails outright if you consider the goal to be preventing restrictions
on modification/redistribution. The GPL uses a restriction on modification
(must add the date modified, etc) and redistribution (must be GPL, anything
derived must be GPL) in order to prevent these restrictions. It's like saying
you need to disallow speeches against free speech in order to permit free
speech. The idea is totally absurd. I'd argue that the BSD license does alot
better, it says modify as much as you want, redistribute as much as you want,
in any way you want, and all you need to do is tell others I was involved, and
that if it does something bad I can't be blamed. If you consider the goal of
the GPL to be to preserve the free redistributability (is that a word?) of a
piece of software, then the GPL does just that. But let's not even kid our
selves in pretending its unrestrictive.
On a side note, lets try and convince the authors of some GPL software we use
to rerelease it under the BSD license. How can they do that? There is one
group that can make a non-GPL version of GPL software, that group being the
copyright holder. They can break their own license, and the only one who could
sue them would be themselves. :)
>
>
> Historical note: the GPL was created by one Richard Stallman, who
> believes that any restrictions on software
> modification/redistribution is unethical. From that point of
> view, the GPL is the best solution and a phenomenally successful
> one. So to blast the GPL for being business-unfriendly just
> doesn't make sense. Besides, businesses do make money from GPL'd
> code -- Cygnus, Red Hat, etc, etc -- and Stallman himself is
> certainly all for it.
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
--
Laurence Berland, Stuyvesant HS Debate
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Windows 98: n.
useless extension to a minor patch release for
32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a
16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor,
written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for
1 bit of competition.
http://stuy.debate.net
icq #7434346 aol imer E1101
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?372C9BD8.5C24D091>