Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:25:50 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@jdyson.com> To: rfotescu@idsrom.com (Radu-Cristian FOTESCU) Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What to tell to Linux-centric people?! Message-ID: <199907291225.HAA08586@jdyson.com> In-Reply-To: <C1F3617BDC52D21185E40000214C247C1540AA@id-bucharest.idsrom.com> from Radu-Cristian FOTESCU at "Jul 29, 99 01:00:28 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > the other predominant FREE U**X clone doesn't effectively > > have SMP at all yet -- so for that, it is a non-issue. > > No! Linux DOES HAVE SMP! And in kernel 2.2 they say it's better than in 2.0. > I can't prove it, I don't have multi-processor machines here... > But, Linux isn't free, but is under GPL. Note that I distinguish between code that is licensed with significant strings attached vs. code that is free in a non-discriminatory way for almost all legal purposes. IMO, there are two reasons why GPLed code is often called free: 1) because source availability with usage restrictions or control is sometimes confused with the code being 'free.' 2) Those who advocate GPL licensing often feel justified in taking advantage of a limited definition of the word 'free' in order to forward their cause. As a case in point, I used to normally get the source for the RSX-11M (and RSX-11M+) kernel so that I could fully resysgen the system, and have all info required to produce a driver, ACP or somesuch. Just because I had access to that source, didn't mean that I have the freedom to redistribute built RSX-11M systems without paying money or other item in trade. In the case of DEC, I could sell my binaries that was based upon RSX-11M code, if I sold an RSX11M license to my customer (in essense, I had to make a trade for the right to redistribute binaries of my own work.) In the case of GPL, I can give binaries of my work that is effectively a result of merging (linking) my work into a GPLed work, only if the source code for the entire work is redistributed. In both cases, my freedom to make profit from my value added is constrained by 1) rightfully giving DEC money or 2) rightfully following the GPL and bona-fide offering to redistribute my hard won source code. So, the cost of dealing with DEC is to pay license fees, but I get to keep my source code, optionally giving it to my customer for some money over and above the DEC licensing fees (i.e. my source code is still an object for negotiation.) In the case of GPLed works, the significant redistribution cost is to provide a bona-fide offer to give the source code of my work away, and create another potential competitor who can easily use my work to compete against me. It doesn't make any sense to call either the DEC or GPLed codebase(s) 'free.' In the case of a BSD licensed work, I don't have to agree to anything, other than preserve copyrights and credits (which are indeed common sense minimal etiquette or legal issues) in order to have the right to redistribute works that are a result of the two works (my work, and the 'other' codebase). In essense, it is free for me to redistribute those merged works, and my own additions to the work aren't encumbered. With the BSD license, I still have the freedom to negotiate a price for source code that I invented. Two predominant free OSes would include FreeBSD and NetBSD. The predominant source-available OS, but has "strings attached" is Linux. > > But, stated that this way, Linux weakens Bill Gate's imperium, I don't think > that these "religious wars" between FreeBSD and Linux advocacies should > continue. > It is difficult to deal with 'religious wars', however there are issues of being deceptive (where all camps have their own problems.) IMO, the issue with Microsoft isn't that they have aggressive business practices, but it is that they are willing to inform their userbases (and the mgmt of the userbase and support teams) with very biased and often deceptive information (IMO.) Such deceptiveness has even extended to some interestingly worded (in clinton-esque terms) testimony and bogus demos. Likewise, it is often (but not always) deceptive to call software under GPL restrictions "free." (Almost any usage of the word 'free' when used in association with GPL, requires singnificant amount of qualification to be accurate.) It is quite clear that most usage of the term "free" when describing GPL by those who *understand* the GPL license is for the easy but errant assocation of GPL with 'free', and the marketing advantage associated with the term 'free.' (It is wrong to claim that everyone who uses the term 'free' without qualification when describing the GPL is being dishonest, because mistakes are easy to make and the spin associated with certain historically incorrect association between the terms 'GPL' and 'free' are hard to correct.) In the case of software licenses, the restrictions to freedom are often dependent on how the limitations affect the user and developer bases. By far, the largest numbers of users and developers who use/utilize the GPLed compiler suites are not negatively affected by licensing restrictions associated with simple use of the GPLed compiler. In the case of OS code, which is often used and incorporated into a product, the longer term consequences of basing one's work on GPLed code needs to be seriously considered. In the case of a simple end user, the nature of the GPL seldom has significant negative consequences. However, it is very likely that most of the people who are reading the FreeBSD mailing lists (for example) are NOT simple end users. One major beauty of source available OSes is that there is alot of freedom to adapt or modify and include the OS kernel (or other) code into a product. In the case of an OS kernel, there is alot of opportunity for such modifications (given different hardware environments, different performance tradeoffs, etc.) The GPL causes more than necessary encumberance of new, potentially novel and potentially expensively innovative code added to previously GPL licensed works. It is a fallacy to make the general claim that work added to a preexisting piece of code is necessarily inferior or less important to a project. For example, given a GPLed compiler, those compiler writers who consider adding an innovative algorithm (or subsystem) need to weigh the cost of having to choose to give their work away to potential competitors, EVEN BEFORE THE WORK IS DONE and EVALUATED. There are analoguous situations for microprocessor or embedded developers using kernel code. IMO, calling BSD licensed software "free" is also probably untrue in an absolute sense, but in the scheme of things is licensed under very, very free terms. So, given the various predominant OSes, where source is normally available, the BSDL terms provide the most freedom for those who add significant value to the works themselves. Until a predominant OS becomes freer than those OSes that are distributed under the BSD licensing terms, it is probably okay to call the *BSD OSes 'free.' John 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?199907291225.HAA08586>