From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Oct 20 16:23:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16081 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:23:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (phobos.illtel.denver.co.us [207.33.75.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA15984 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from abelits@phobos.illtel.denver.co.us) Received: from localhost (abelits@localhost) by phobos.illtel.denver.co.us (8.8.8/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA12876; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:22:33 -0700 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:22:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Alex Belits To: Jonathan Lemon cc: "Jasper O'Malley" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Producing non-GPLed tools for FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <19981020173329.52764@right.PCS> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > I don't want to know, what do you smoke, but please, explain, what kind > > of disclosure of the GPL'ed source is prohibited by GPL? > > Read what I wrote above. ``as long as you agree to our terms''. The difference is in those terms. > You can share NDA sources with other people, as long as they > are NDA'd also. I can't grant anyone the status of being under NDA, only the company that issued the NDA can, and it can make its choice, whom to grant it. > You can share GPL sources with other people, as long as they > are GPL'd also. GPL does not allow anyone, who issued a software under it to choose further, whom it can grant the right to use it and under what conditions, once it's GPL'ed, it's GPL'ed for everyone, and it's the licensee who has the choice to take software, or not, no one else has any control over any particular act of downloading and using the software except one that performs it. In civilized society it's called "freedom". > What is so hard to understand about this? To me, free means free. > Not, ``with strings attached'', in whatever form the attachment is. So, if you will ask for freedom to carry guns you will demand to also have the right to shoot at anyone? The existence of restrictions does not reduce freedom per se, the existence of *power* to establish restrictions does. NDA gives the company that issued a software the power to deny licensing of the software or change the conditions. GPL abandons such a power, so it belongs to the category of licenses that make software free. And in this meaning of the word so does BSD-style license, however BSD license and GPL place different restrictions to the software, distributedd under them, main difference is that GPL requires all derived works to remain under it while BSD allows to place derived works under different license and have power over their distribution. Licenses that involve NDAs however do not abandon the power over the distribution of the original work or any derivatives, and therefore place them under control of the company that issued the original license. > > I find it disturbing that people don't see freedom unless they can trade > > it for something else. > > I find it disturbing that people call restrictions ``freedom''. I can't fly (I will break my neck if I'll try). I can't kill my neighbors (I will be imprisoned or killed if I'll try). I can't buy food without spending money on it (I will be imprisoned if I'll try). I can't change an employer (I will lose my visa to this country if I'll try). Which of the above mentioned restrictions affect my freedom and which of them allow someone else to have a power over me? -- Alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message