Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:38:28 +0200 From: Willie Viljoen <will@unfoldings.net> To: Johnson David <DavidJohnson@Siemens.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: O'Reilly apologizes for calling BSD "Free Software" Message-ID: <200302272338.28371.will@unfoldings.net> In-Reply-To: <200302271306.26357.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> References: <200302261224.54884.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> <3E5E70F8.85AE964@mindspring.com> <200302271306.26357.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 27 February 2003 23:06, someone, possibly Johnson David, typed: > It's a form of "GNUspeak". If you speak enough GNUspeak, you start to > believe what you're saying. For instance, "liberating software". A good > analogy is an injured fox in a foxtrap. The BSD camp will "liberate" > the fox by releasing it from the trap and letting it go. The GNU camp > will "liberate" the fox by releasing it from the trap, then cutting its > legs off so it can't get trapped again. It's even simpler than that. GNU believe software should be free, as in, nobody can controle the software's development or rights to the software, and if anybody wants to modify the software, the modification must also be free, hence the author of any modification also has no rights to his own work. Under the BSD license, software is free, in the monetary sence. We give it away for free, and people can do with it, well, what ever they hell they like. If they want to port an early version of the KAME project's code, call it "the TCP/IP stack" and sell it as part of Windows 2000, well, that's their business. The GNU folks would have sued Microsoft years ago, we just think it's really cool that they finally figured out that they are too stupid to write their own code, and are using code from FreeBSD instead. The GNU people would have said: "Windows uses our free (liberated) code, thus Windows has been freed, and must now be made open source and available free of charge to the public." We say: "Look at MS, they spent years, and millions, writing their own IP stack, and they ended up using ours, which they could have done in the first place, without paying a cent, they are stupid, and we love it." In all seriousness though. I find the provisions of the GPL anything but "liberating." Infact, I believe the GNU people are nothing but politically acceptable software dictators. Let's say Daimler-Benz AG decided that the automobile with internal combustion engine, which its founders Daimler and Benz invented at the same time, working in seperate workshops, in 1885, was to be an "open source" creation. Let's say the licensed the use of their automobile under something similar to the GPL. Some time later, Volvo takes a look at their car, and think: "Hey, let's install seat belts and keep people from flying through the winshield." If the origional automobile were licensed under the GPL, Volvo would not be able to receive anything other than credit for their idea of adding seat belts, wethere they wanted to charge for the use of the idea, or not. Volvo could ofcourse have "cloned" the Mercedes and added seat belts, which would have been no problem, except that they would have to reinvent the wheel, or the Mercedes, for that matter. Why does a Swede need to build his own version of the Mercedes just to be able to add seat belts to it and charge for this innovation, without a German lawer from Daimler-Benz telling him that seat belts are a modificaiton on their Mercedes, and thus should be free, or liberated, because their Mercedes is free, or liberated. OK, alright, Mercedes and Volvos are both not free, but you get the point. If the Mercedes were licensed under the BSD license however, Volvo would have had alot less trouble getting their seat belt idea implemented, and saving lives, even if they wanted to charge for it. They would just have needed to grab a BSD licensed Mercedes, install seat belts, and sell it for profit as a Volvo. Instead, they had to build a whole new car, from the ground up, just sothat they could have a car into which to install their seat belts, and make money from them. Back to the topic though... The point is that the GNU people's idea of "free" is very distorted, in both its possible meanings. How can they claim that their product is truly free, when it is really only free when this freedom is made use of under their strict terms? Those who license the BSD way, on the other hand, just don't care what you do with the code, the fact that you want the code is enough for them, what you want to do with it (ie, modify it, use it in something you want to sell, sell it, bury it in a chest on a CD-ROM for your grand kids to find), well, that is your business. Will -- Willie Viljoen Freelance IT Consultant 214 Paul Kruger Avenue, Universitas Bloemfontein 9321 South Africa +27 51 522 15 60 +27 51 522 44 36 (after hours) +27 82 404 03 27 (mobile) will@unfoldings.net 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?200302272338.28371.will>