Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 16:27:32 +0100 From: Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> To: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: license Message-ID: <20000107162731.A12006@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> In-Reply-To: <200001071310.IAA17308@blackhelicopters.org> References: <38753925.C30D57B@softweyr.com> <200001071310.IAA17308@blackhelicopters.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:10:07AM -0500, Michael Lucas wrote: > That's a nice statement of what it is, but not a statement of "why." > Allow me to explain why I ask: > > I'm pretty much surrounded by Linux bigots. Their big pro-Linux > argument that they have is the GPL, and how it's great for the > community. > > So, is there any highfalutin' purpose behind the BSDL? Or is it as > nonpolitical as it appears to be? Having had this argument many > times, I'd like something better than "we don't care"; from an > advocacy point of view, that never comes across well. > > I find Kirk's explanation adequate. But it doesn't stand up well > against the "community spirit" of the GPL. Although I am certainly none of the BSD veterans, but being a interested in these issues I decided to throw in my $0.02 just in case someone might decide to read it. (it's a bit long, sorry for that!) I think that the BSDL's strength is that it comes from a time, when software (and especially, the OS) was a part of the computer it ran on and therefore there was no need to place restricitve license condotions on it. Also, to make it work the way you wanted often required tweaking which would have been impossible with a restrictive license. Those days are gone, but misteriously some of these veterans survived, including BSD and Sendmail. They accomodated many development efforts over the years and became substantially better by it. In theory the BSDL is the "better" license because it comes with almost no strings attached and thus allows you freedom in what you do with the software. This license would serve everybody well if we lived in a world which would be based on fair competition and fair use of other peoples' work. The majority of BSD users follow these principles that is why it has remained free during all those years although legally speaking there are no 'bars' in the license which would have prevented a different outcome, save for the fact, perhaps, that you can always go back and grab an earlier version which was still free and work from there (as was the case with ssh, for example). The GPL (along with Linux) surfaced in a different environment. There was dominance by commercial, closed-source vendors all over the place and everyone perceived this to be normal. They occasionally complained about poor quality but they expected the friendly monopoly to fix it again. The monopolies, on their part were more interested in improving the UI of their products and neglected fixing of errors for long periods of time. Also, there was (and is) a trend of them simply buying smaller firms which offer competitive products they need and simply repackage those as their own. This has led to even more reduced competition. Richard Stallman and others were alarmed by this situation and wanted to construct a system which would not only produce good-quality non-proprietary software but also would bar anybody from taking it and thus maybe killing the free character of it. The interesting part is that IMHO everybody is right and yet nobody gets it in those endless flame-wars that accompany this issue. In fact, the GNU advocates are right when pointing out the community-building character of the GNU/Linux movement and also when they warn about the nature of big-business corporate capitalism killing off competition slowly but surely. But BSDL advocates (whom, despite all 'copycenter' attitude we might have, I would classify as liberals and thus more to the right of the spectrum, in contrast with the socialist attitude of many GPLers...) were also right in pointing out that this has not happened anywhere yet and also that the logic behind it is not fail-proof: even in the PC market where there was a de-facto 90+% dominance of one company, it only took a couple of years and things have changed. Thus, people are actually moving and not just in the direction the mass is heading: they are thinking. That is what we have always suggested by saying: it is up to YOU to decide what to do with this, we will not restrict you but the responsibility lies with you. This is why for some this issue is more than just software: it is the ever-present liberals vs. socialists debate in Europe or if you live in the U.S., the debate Republicans vs. Democrats. The debate of 'letting things go as they develop' vs. 'we must care for them because they cannot take care for themselves'. It has not to do with politics directly but since your political beliefs are shaped by some fundamental attitudes, it was easy for the GPL activists to explore and expand on this one. They did it consicously and on purpose: if you are attached to something with more than rational ties, you will defend it really hard. It was a good intention, given that around them there were not many promising signs. Also, one must admit that before Linux came around, open software offerings were isolated, rather arbitrarily maintained and had no interest for interoperability thus making them no alternatives to somebody who was not running some UNIX system already and had a lot of experience with it. This has changed with GNU and Linux, admit it. It not only meant more media hype (sure) more money and investment (sure) but also a more/less coherent set of alternative software that could be used by home users with x86 based PCs instead of products on the Windows platform. This was at once due to the programming they did and also the cult they created. At first no one could say for sure if this movement would last but now we can say that even if it finished now, it has left its mark in the history of computing. It was not just them, all competitors (including the huge monopolies) were forced to get their act together and we got all better by this competition which for some reason did exist on a much smaller scale before. Perhaps it was that most admins/programmers were already experienced and had their unshakeable preferences and thus were no longer discussing these issues seriously. Sometimes it takes a freaky young guy who comes around breaking taboos and throwing stuff into your face to shake you up. And this competition was very much favored by the GPL with unlimited modifications and ego-boosting allowed for as long as you also leave room for others on the top. But there is a decisive factor that sometimes is taken for granted and thus forgotten: none of this would have been possible without the Internet and not one license model, except for the 'proprietary' and the 'public domain' would be able to survive without it. Without the Net, there would be no opportunity for the many develpers to work together and to share their products without high costs. But it is also essential for such seemingly neutral models as ours. Were it not for huge software archives, the danger of somebody monopolizing BSDLed software were much more real. Just think of it: were it not for the archives, we would not have been able to find a free version of ssh this time, only maybe docs saying that it once existed because it was long time ago and by now almost everybody was using restricted versions and were even content doing so. The GPL guys were almost right, were it not for the Net. So I think there is no decisive "yes" or "no" valid for all time for the GPL vs BSDL question. One can be more appropriate for certain things and the other for other things. It is up to you to decide, one-by-one. The good thing is that the choice exists. And if they ask you, what is BSDL's definitive advantage, you can say that it is the fact that it exists and thus is a choice and that's it. BTW I use FreeBSD because it really kicks ass on this machine, not because of license considerations. Also, when Linuxers ask me about it, I always tell them a couple of things but never mention the license. It is impressive enough without it already. Especially if I tell them that our advocacy team really makes hard collective efforts, even in very special fields like keyboards and uhm...:-) (Sometimes they say, that the big difference between the Linux and the BSD crowd is that while Linuxers tend to be very young with an excess of time on their hands, BSDers are a more mature mix. In light of recent events on -advocacy I will suggest revising that often-heard statement...:) That was it, guys. Thanks for your patience! Digitally yours: Sz. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Szilveszter ADAM * JATE Szeged * email: sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu * * Homepage : none * alternate email: cc@flanker.itl.net.ua * * Finger sziszi@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu for PGP key. * * I prefer using the door instead of Windows(tm)... * 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?20000107162731.A12006>