Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:54:10 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Greg Lehey" <grog@lemis.com> Cc: "Don Wilde" <Don@Silver-Lynx.com>, "Anders Nordby" <anders@fix.no>, <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>, <core@daemonnews.org> Subject: RE: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand Together" Message-ID: <000001c0e028$20147860$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010519092859.F7708@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Lehey [mailto:grog@lemis.com] >Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:59 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Don Wilde; Anders Nordby; freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG; >core@daemonnews.org >Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand >Together" > >>> What's wrong in that? I'm a little surprised how much the advertising >>> clause worried the GPL faction, but then I'm very surprised how much >>> the GPL worries the BSD faction. >> >> I frankly see little evidence that the GPL worries the BSD faction. > >Then you're closing your eyes. We're continually seeing threads >bashing the GPL. Look at the thread "Stallman stalls again", in which >you participated. This thread also appears to be FUD against the GPL. > I should have said "GPL worries the BSD leadership" there, you are absolutely correct when you say that that there are a lot of threads bashing Stallman, although I think that a lot of that is more of a reaction against him than against the GPL. Yes, there's no shortage of BSD followers bashing GPL, and vis-versa. But, I guess I don't see the bashing being carried out by the BSD leadership, like McKusick for example. Contrast this to Linus calling MacOS X "crap" >> >> They are rapidly becoming more and more united as a) Microsoft >> becomes more active against the GPL specifically, rather than Open >> Source Software in general, and b) as the Linux distributors buy >> each other out. > >This doesn't interest esr or rms. And having been involved in a >near-buyout myself recently, I see no evidence of any unity. > Like it or not, a successful buyout _is_ unity ;-) BSDi buying Walnut Creek unified them, for example. Usually, the losers in a buyout don't see it that way. :-) And, as far as public statements, Bruce's "FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND TOGETHER" document stands for itself as an example of the proof of my statement that they (meaning GPL) are rapidly becoming more united. >> by selling stock right after IPO. How do you think that Eric >> Raymond survives anyway when he has no job (other than being GPL >> playboy at various GPL conferences and such) > >I haven't investigated. But he must get a lot of book royalties. > True enough. Hmm, now who was the publisher?? ;-) > >What does all this have to do with your original statement: > Then I'll throw this right back to you and ask you what does the current lack of profitability of folks like Red Hat have to do with my statement that the GPL people have business models that are in effect big marketing machines? You were the one that held out the profitability=validity requirement, not me. > >Simplifying somewhat, "there's a shortage of developers, and open >source is the flavour of the day". There's nothing in the paragraph A concise summary of what I was saying, if a bit crude. >above which means it has to be GPL. In fact, it doesn't mention GPL. > Quite true, I did leave this out. The same forces that help GPL when more developers get into GPL, they also help BSD when more developers select the BSD license. But, I find it extremely telling that the GPL people are so much fixated on GPL that they have this whole OSI Certified Mark thing set up, (with GNU at the top of the list even though alphabetically it's supposed to be AFTER BSD) and then they turn around and bashed BSD for including an "advertising requirement" (which was total BS as this was NOT what it was) Then, after they get the requirement deleted, they take pains to say that BSD is equivalent to MIT license (without, of course, on the MIT page saying that it's equivalnet to BSD) That's BS too because BSD is an idea, not just a license, while all the MIT license is, is a license. It's like "well, BSD is OK as long as you don't mention your using it but if you use GPL by God we are going to make sure the world knows about it" > >There's a history of BSD people publically putting down the GPL >license, No - there's a history of the BSD _users_ publically putting GPL down, NOT the BSD leadership. There's also a history of the GPL users putting BSD down. But, there's ALSO a history of the GPL _leadership_ putting down BSD too. >and then something like this "Free Software Leaders Stand >Together" comes along and they make no effort to publically reach out >to the BSD people. Right, exactly, this is my central point. When has the BSD leadership shafted Linux the way that Linus has shafted BSD (by extension of shafting Apple, since MacOS X is FreeBSD 3.2 plus Mach) When has the BSD leadership shafted GPL the way Bruce Perens shafted BSD by (in the early days) saying that developers shouldn't use BSD license because of the advertising clause? So what a bunch of BSD users bitch, there's plenty MORE GPL users that bitch against BSD. tit for tat. But, nothing like this exists with the leadership. From the GPL leadership's point of view, it seems as they take every subtle opportunity they can to minimize BSD. Equating to the MIT license, indeed. In contrast, the BSD leadership takes many opportunities to THANK the GNU project and GPL for producing gcc, and other utilities. Acknowledgements like this are frequently given. I don't want to harp too much on this, but in the rediculous catagory, I just looked through the little installation booklet that came with the Walnut Creek 4.2 FreeBSD CDROM. I saw 2 mentions of Linux in there, one from parallel port installation, the other from NFS installation. I challenge you to find even ONE mention of the name FreeBSD in ANY Linux installation CD. >When they attempt to make up for it, some BSD >people get up on their hind legs and doubt their motives. > How have they attempted to make up for this? I see nothing mentioning BSD at http://www.perens.com but the link to the "Free Software Leaders Stand Together" is the first link on there. > >I think it's reasonable to put the things you believe in above >everything else. I think FreeBSD is better than Linux. Should I go >and put Linux above FreeBSD? > Of course not. I think FreeBSD is better than Linux too, and I think that the BSD license is better than GPL. I also think that it's shameful that people wouldn't want to put "Portions of this software copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley" in their acknowledgements if they use some BSD code. And I think that people like Bruce that say a license that mandates that you give credit to the authors is a flawed license, are shameful as well. But, where your stepping over the line is when your being interviewed by news reporters and you convey the impression that GNU/GPL = Open Source, AKA Free Software. Sure, you may have a big website all about Open Source and buried in it there's a few lines about BSD - but the reporters don't read that. This is all about marketing and media manipulation. My central beef is that anytime that the GPL people do anything public, that is intended to be a media statement, they totally ignore BSD. By not asking a single BSD person to put their name on his litle manifesto of unity, this is exactly what Bruce is doing. It simply adds to the reinforcement that Open Source Software = GPL, and GPL is the only way to go. > >> Incidents like Bruce ignoring BSD in his response are just more and >> more nails in the coffin of GPL<->BSD friendship. And, it's not the >> BSD people that are doing the nailing. > >I see a lot of nails in this thread. Quite honestly, after reading >what you've written, I can't blame Bruce. Remember his statement: > > I wonder what the BSD reaction in general would have been? Although > I assume they use gcc, some of them have been rather GPL-hostile. > Hopefully they'd be able to stand together with everyone else. > >I think this thread has vindicated his standpoint. > If Bruce had approached any BSD people and been rebuffed, then you would be absolutely correct. However, he chose not to do so. Sorry, but I'm not a "turn the other cheek and slap me around some more" type of person. Bruce slapped us across the face by deliberately ignoring any BSD commentary. And then he puts a thinly veiled insult in there by the statement "I assume they use gcc" for God sakes, he knows perfectly well what the BSD people use as a complier. All he's saying there is that the BSD people should count their blessings because without gcc they wouldn't exist. Why don't you e-mail this entire thread to Bruce and invite him to make an apology for not including any recognized BSD leaders in his document, and then see if he will post _that_ on his webpage? I'll bet that all you will get is a private mealy-mouthed apology, and no public statement on his website at all. >> While I can deal with the GPL as an ideal in and of itself, I think >> the BSD folks are getting irritated with the actions of the folks >> around it. > >I think this goes both ways. Far too many people doubt the motives of >the "other side". > Well, then what are we supposed to do? Create our own "FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND TOGETHER" document and get the BSD leaders to sign off on it, then go approach the GPL people and see if they will sign it too? After Bruce has stolen all the media attention? Sure, that will be real useful. There's already a document out there titled FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND TOGETHER and Bruce has written it. Rah Rah for him for jumping in there and grabbing the media attention to respond to Mundie's remarks. This is a good example of clever media manipulation. Now, if Bruce wants to "bridge the gulf" he can invite the BSD people in to get some of the attention focused on this document too. Rightly we belong in there with the other signatories. I'd be happy to add my name to it. But, I don't think that there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, or of any BSD leader being added to that, because this document, purported to be all about "Free Software Leaders" is in reality all about GPL, and wants nothing to do with BSD. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com 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?000001c0e028$20147860$1401a8c0>