From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Feb 12 16:46:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03555 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:46:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from jason02.u.washington.edu (jason02.u.washington.edu [140.142.76.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA03546 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:46:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcwells@u.washington.edu) Received: from saul7.u.washington.edu (root@saul7.u.washington.edu [140.142.82.2]) by jason02.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id QAA11380 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:46:10 -0800 Received: from S8-37-26.student.washington.edu (S8-37-26.student.washington.edu [128.208.37.26]) by saul7.u.washington.edu (8.9.2+UW99.01/8.9.2+UW99.01) with ESMTP id QAA23935 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:46:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:45:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Jason C. Wells" X-Sender: jason@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu Reply-To: "Jason C. Wells" To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: BSD Not Compatible With GPL? In-Reply-To: <199902122302.QAA23640@usr01.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org http://www.slashdot.org/articles/99/02/12/0939216.shtml Funny, opensource.org says that BSD and GPL are both "opensource". Now FSF says that the advertising clause (recently pointed out in this forum) is not compatible with GPL. This is what I see: The FSF doesn't want to advertise the use of BSD code. The FSF must comply with the BSD license. The FSF must remove BSD code or reimpliment pursuant to the above two statements. Do they purport to reimpliment the world for the sake of the GPL? People cannot just slap GPL on everything in sight, can they? Eventually, through the use of the GPL, any incremental improvements to software cannot be taken advantage _even by the original author_ of a piece of software, if the original author refuse to put GPL on his original work. (a priori the author produces software under a "free" license) Software that varies by license only will diverge. A race for "head count" will ensue. If your software doesn't get mindshare quickly, it may well die. The original authors work becomes the work of someone who GPLed improvements and wouldn't give back. Someone needs to walk over to FSF and slap someone HARD. No Linux is not the enemy. No GPL is not the enemy. If the FSF refuses to allow any software to be distributed without a GPL then how is freedom served? It is starting to seem to me that relicensing software under GPL is taking away from "freesoftware at large" and giving to "freesoftware a la FSF". I am sorry. I love to use my bash and other software. I must say that I am starting to wonder about the politics of the GPL. Isn't this example an example of NIH that Jordan warned us about on freshmeat? (It is nice to see Linux friendly slashdot readers bemoaning the politics of the FSF.) Catchya Later, | Give me UNIX or give me a typewriter. Jason Wells | http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message