Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:20:39 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: proff@suburbia.net (Julian Assange) Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rsync Message-ID: <199607011420.JAA00986@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199607011257.WAA05320@suburbia.net> from "Julian Assange" at Jul 1, 96 10:57:37 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > THe only un-cool thing is the GPL virus. > > I whole-heartedly support the GPL philosophy. Even though it has gone > out of vouge. New information is built on and from existing information. > The speed that information evolves in complexity and function is > directly related how available it is. Retardation of information flows > decreases the efficiency and efficacity of human knowledge. > These are all my opinions, so don't blame others (including the FreeBSD team) for them :-): Actually, I find that implementation isn't the "hard part." It is the idea behind the implementation. If I see a commercial (proprietary) example, I can usually re-implement it much more easily than if I have to invent the idea also. Given that, the notion that GPLed source code somehow "frees" ideas, is significantly lessened, from my viewpoint. Commercial enhancement of GPLed software is less desirable by the ones who are doing the work than if software that is freeer, like under the BSDL. At least an idea can be implemented in a proprietary fashion, then people like me can see that the idea exists, and then can re-implement it for more free use and freer redistribution. A business who creates enhancements to BSDLed code has the freedom to decide at a later date whether or not to redistribute source code, under the more free and liberal BSDL terms (and in fact, the terms for the modifications might even be more strict than BSDL, if such terms are needed to remain competitive.) Again, in my more mature years, I have not seen that "coding" is the hard part of programming. It is error-prone, but not always "hard." Finding the interface specs, and understanding what needs to be done is more tricky, but only then, coding (including testing) is the challenge. (Note that I use/develop code on NT at work, and there are ideas to be learned from examples from that OS, believe it or not.) Now, the easy part is to implement some of the ideas. It is only the implementation (embodiment) that comes under GPL. The commercial enhancement of GPLed code in a competitive market might not happen as often as it could, because of the redistribution terms in GPL. Given these arguments, GPL stunts itself, because commercial companies are not as likely to add new embodiments of ideas to the (GPL) code base. The disincentive is that the commercial, proprietary embodiments must be allowed to be disclosed to those that receive the (binary) code. At that point, the competition can have access to the embodiment of ideas, and the cost of entry is diminished. For small companies that can be disaster. > > GPL does not forbid commercial use, providing source is made available. > GPL forbids the choice of keeping your modifications private much of the time, if you need to redistribute binaries as a side-effect of your use. It a-priori denys you the freedom to keep your implementation of ideas from competition. Under BSDL, you can choose to release your implementation (potentially to the competition) anytime or never. So, to sum it up, it seems likely that BSDL is much more desirable for commercial use and embodiment of ideas (implementation.) The free software world can re-implement, if needed. The implementation is the easy part, but the ideas are "hard." John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607011420.JAA00986>