Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:25:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Nitebirdz <nitebirdz@uswest.net> To: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> Cc: freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD Advocacy... Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006131018390.5975-100000@coimbra.oss.uswest.net> In-Reply-To: <394525C6.F3C84C5@acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, David Johnson wrote: > Okay folks, opinion time! > > What's the best way to counter the continual FUD that the GPL protects > software better than the BSD license? It's starting to annoy me that so > many pundits point to a mere license as the sole reason why Linux is > better than FreeBSD. My guess is that if they didn't focus on the > license, they would have to focus on the software and sadly conclude > that Linux is not necessarily superior to FreeBSD, Solaris or other > quality unices. > Difficult to counter. I agree with the view. The BSD does not protect the community from witnessing a major corporatin virtually hijacking the code. As a matter of fact, nothing stops Microsoft from doing precisely that. I know, I know, some people say that the day that happens we will have won. Wrong. The day that happens, Microsoft will have a kick ass stable, reliable and efficient operating system that they can change to their own pleasure without giving back to the community they took it from. > This FUD seems to have ramped up considerably since the > Microsoft/Kerberos affair. One of the most persistant statements is "the > GPL prevents people from stealing the code". Another common one that > always raises my hackles is "the Linux kernel succeeded where BSD did > not because of the GPL." Not only is this a subtle insult to the Linux > coders, it also implies that the BSDs have failed. And then there was > the email sent to my private address: "would you please release you > software under the GPL so that I can use it?". > Agree that is simply stupid. I mean the "would you please release your software under the GPL so that I can use it?" request, because the one where you say that "the GPL prevents people from stealing the code" is totally true... at least as far as these licenses are legally enforceable. > We know that FreeBSD is not inferior to Linux. We know that the BSD > license is 100% free. We know that different needs means different > licenses. But how do we get this message out, and how do we get it out > without denigrating Linux and the GPL at the same time? I have been > correcting some of these misconceptions as I find them in various Linux > forums, but I'm not sure that this is even useful or productive. > > Opinions? > > David > > I suppose the same way the license has disadvantages for companies such as SGI or IBM, since other companies could clearly take advantage of their code it also has advantages for other companies. For example, a given company may be interested in building some customized version of FreeBSD for their own purposes that they can sell under their own terms. That is simply not possible with the GPL license. Perhaps that is where the BSD advocates should center their attention. -- Nitebirdz http://www.linuxnovice.org Tips, articles, news, links... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0006131018390.5975-100000>