From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Dec 20 12: 9:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from torpy.unbc.ca (torpy.unbc.ca [142.207.144.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C80537B405 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ugrad.unbc.ca (ugrad.unbc.ca [142.207.112.20]) by torpy.unbc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA4557332; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:09:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (karlj000@localhost) by ugrad.unbc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26137; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:09:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ugrad.unbc.ca: karlj000 owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 12:09:23 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Karlson To: Brett Glass Cc: "Gary W. Swearingen" , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011220065451.02653af0@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > >Okay, "proprietary" is perhaps not a good word, but I still can't think of > >a better one. > Try "commercial." GPLed software cannot be commercial, because it > cannot be the object of commerce. Yes, you can sell a disc with > the software ON it for money, but you cannot license the software > ITSELF for money. I don't think "commercial" does it either. There can be commercially created GPLed code - JFS, for example. Again, it depends on your interpretation of commercial. I would consider it to be "commercially created," where you seem to consider it as "an object of commerce." Both, I think, are correct. > >What I was getting at is that even if Stallman were to > >change the license on his "free software," users would always have the > >ability to grab an older version and fork development at that point. > Yes, but then they would have to maintain a parallel version which > there is no economic incentive to develop (because the current GPL > already precludes any reward for doing so). You're right. But the option always exists. And if Stallman were to change the terms of the GPL to something frightening, I'm sure it would happen. There would be developers willing to continue with both licenses. They would eventually become different species. Sort of in the same way that Free, Net and Open have forked and grew into different projects, the same would happen to, say, GCC. > McKusick's essay in that book is worth a read. Stallman and Perens' > contributions are pure propaganda. I'd like to take your opinion as one that matters, but the above sounds like the statement of a person whose mind is set in one regard and rejects all other opinions. Stallman and Perens essays may be completely preachy, and I don't doubt that, but I'm sure there is still something interesting and worth reading in them. What about the other contributors? Something, say, that isn't about the GPL and BSDL fight? -- Jeremy The difference between legal separation and divorce is that legal separation gives the man time to hide his money. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message