From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 23 10:55:19 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from iquest3.iquest.net (iquest3.iquest.net [209.43.20.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE989112FF for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:55:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toor@y.dyson.net) Received: (qmail 10687 invoked from network); 23 Feb 1999 18:55:09 -0000 Received: from dyson.iquest.net (HELO y.dyson.net) (198.70.144.127) by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 23 Feb 1999 18:55:09 -0000 Received: (from toor@localhost) by y.dyson.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA03712; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:55:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902231855.NAA03712@y.dyson.net> Subject: Re: GPL issues (Was: More important Windows Refund Day coverage) In-Reply-To: <19990223091605.D2606@bitbox.follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Feb 23, 99 09:16:06 am" To: eivind@FreeBSD.ORG (Eivind Eklund) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:55:08 -0500 (EST) Cc: chris@netmonger.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: "John S. Dyson" Reply-To: dyson@iquest.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Eivind Eklund said: > > These aren't the parts that bother me. What bothers me is the > restrictively licensed "core parts" - awk, dc, cpio, grep, diff, grep, > gzip, sort, tar, uucp. > The thing about the above tools, is that there is little use in modifying them substantially. In essense, as a developer, I wouldn't be basing a big part of a product on the above tools, and modifying them. GPL is "ok" in the sense as just grabbing the code, running away with it, and using it and giving away source. So, I have to distribute the source for "grep" on the CDROMs for my product? :-). The source for "grep" might be smaller than the binary... In fact, the additional cost for GPLed works, in the sense of giving away "bits", might sometimes be on the order of "BSDL", with the numerous acknowledgements. > > I'm bothered a tiny bit by the toolchain being restrictively licensed, > but not as much. I believe that a restrictive license like the GPL > may be the right choice for development tools (though NOT the GPL > itself, due to the number of ways you can screw yourself with it, and > the lack of ability of a reasonable entity to gran exceptions). > In the case of GPL development tools, it is (IMO) a little worse, due to the possibility of actually adding creative enhancements. If one takes the attitude of just using the tools as a black box, hands off, other than to distribute source, then GPL is okay there. The problem with GPL, IMO, is where it infringes upon areas where creative endeavors might be involved. Most of what is GPLed is pretty much logical copies of what has been done for years. Look at TenDRA (non-GPL) for serious innovation, for example. (They have an intriguing non-traditional structure.) It is the IP worker (programmer, and innovative designer) that is specifically targeted and discriminated against by GPL. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message