Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:03:51 +0200 From: Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> To: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anti-BSD FUD Message-ID: <20000607060351.A24669@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606184819.04b11b80@localhost>; from brett@lariat.org on Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 06:48:29PM -0600 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000606184819.04b11b80@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 06:48:29PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > See > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2582875,00.html Although the topic (as any topic involving GPL vs BSDL) is potentially highly susceptible to flaming (no smoking in the area, please) and I usually do not post in flame wars, this time I would like to add a couple of things. The article did not talk about the BSDs in a negative light, it only talked about the license, yet it was quick to point out that BSD operating systems are "high quality". I do not think this is FUD. The article did not eulogise the FSF approach as a whole, either, it even sounded a very valid argument against RMS's attitude. It only pointed to a fact in the BSDL which we all knew existed but have not payed much attention to this far. This is not FUD, this is criticism. Even though we are getting good press lately not least because our PR machinery is accelerating (and I am happy to see that for as long as the information presented is factual and correct and truth is not taken over by marketing talk), we must also take into account that as our visibility increases, people will actually have opinions about us and those will not always be favorable and not always come from dedicated supporters. This is not bad, on the contrary. As to the merit of the article, I find that the author's points are valid to some degree. If you base your only hope on licenses and laws to protect you and count on an otherwise hostile environment, where everyone is out to crush you in any way not explicitly forbidden, the GPL is a better choice. In an environment where you can count on decade-old customs and traditioms of sharing and improving, of giving everyone fair credit, of fair use even when you are making profit from it, law will not be your only recourse. This is the approach we seem to cultivate. We seem to hold that it is not only laws which make sure that things function, it is peoples' belief that it should work this way and them voluntarily following the rules, too. And indeed, this is a very important factor in why rules and regulations work even when they are not expressly enforced by force or even when such enforcement is not even possible. However, there are situations when the FSF's more pessimistic approach is more valid. It must be decided on a case-by-case basis, after all, licenses were invented to serve a need and you must decide what your needs are instead of making this a religious issue. BTW I think even the GPL would not have stopped Microsoft from making proprietary extensions to the protocol, because of their "freedom to innovate" ideology which has not been defeated yet, and which is in fact just a cover for "I can do whatever I want to because I am the leader and everybody will have to follow me sooner or later. Also, noone dare touch me because I am the American economic growth and I hold America's future in innovations in IT." The only reason it has not yet come to a showdown between the FSF and Microsoft is the fact that there are alternatives they can take (like BSDL-ed software) without piling up legal costs and going for confrontation. But this paragraph is only personal opinion and commentary. Wish you all a nice day from the sunny Southern Hungary. -- Regards: Szilveszter ADAM Szeged University Szeged Hungary 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?20000607060351.A24669>