Date: 18 Dec 2001 20:59:47 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Stephen J Bevan <stephen@etunnels.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <736673ztx8.673@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <15391.50782.619686.198748@apathy.etunnels.com> References: <20011218121011.E21649@monorchid.lemis.com> <4hzo4hyv3c.o4h@localhost.localdomain> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217221801.02841bc0@localhost> <0gn10gyxwd.10g@localhost.localdomain> <15391.50782.619686.198748@apathy.etunnels.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen J Bevan <stephen@etunnels.com> writes:
> Gary W. Swearingen writes:
> > Unfortunately, he also decided to punish developers who WILL allow
> > repair and enhancement (eg, FreeBSD) but won't join in the punishment of
> > others; that is way the GPL has no virus-escape clause for other open
> > software, which it easily could do. I don't understand why more people
> > don't find this bullying of other open ("free") software developers
> > distasteful.
>
> Perhaps, because they don't see it as bullying?
No, that can't be it because they can fail to see it as bullying and
still find it distasteful.
I welcome a thoughtful answer as well as an answer to why more people
don't find this distasteful ploy to be bullying.
> Is someone forcing you to use GPL software?
No. I can sit and stare at a wall and not be forced to use it. But if
I want to use the Internet or keep my ISP or use FreeBSD on my desktop
or aviod re-writing a Linux kernel driver from scratch for FreeBSD, then
yes, I'm being forced to use GPL software, so someone must be forcing
me. You surely don't think that "force" is only exerted by muscles and
firearms, do you? Money and inconvenience are the more usual weapons of
bullies. For another example, consider Mr. Gates in his business
dealings. Has anyone ever been forced to deal with Mr. Gates or his
company? Have you?
BTW, I forgot to note something that you should like. Near-PD licensors
of open source software don't have to join in the punishment of closed
source developers to a 100% level when incorporating GPL code into a
collective or derivative work (at least as the GPL is commonly
interpreted; there is only a small risk of infringement). They may
dual-license the non-GPL parts of the derivative, as long as the more
liberal license is not GPL-incompatible. Or they may put it into the
PD; but in that case, unscrupulous copyleftists are free (and more
likely) to remove notice of it's status as truly free software. Dual
licensing might be an acceptable compromise for collective works, but
for typical derivative work, there is little hope of keeping the BSDL
code identified and one might as well become a pure copyleftist.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?736673ztx8.673>