Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:55:49 -0800 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <200003181755.JAA18402@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003180950460.6691-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in> References: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003180950460.6691-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > However, I think you left out something else (I'm not being > categorical on this, since I'm not in the computer business): as > I understand it, the great majority of software engineers (I once > heard a figure of 90%, at least in India) are into custom-written > software, not packaged stuff like Oracle. The software firms are > contracted by companies to write this, and it is not distributed > but used only under the company's own roof for its own purposes. > In that case the licence is really irrelevant; the GPL doesn't > force anyone to redistribute the code. I have been in this situation before with one of my previous employers. When the Indian software firm A modifies GPL'ed code and ships it off to company B, GPL triggers. You can have private modifications to GPL, only if the code remains within a legal entity. You can certainly play legal games to work around it, but that's not pretty. > Another money-making scheme, directly off the GPL, is what Peter > Deutsch did for Ghostscript (though this is not something > Stallman approved of): he has three licensing schemes, the GPL > for year-old software, a very restrictive "free licence" for the > latest version, and a commercial licence. This just conforms to the letter of GPL, but not the spirit of GPL. > The interview says that he made enough money to retire on. But > I'm not very clear what advantage Deutsch would have gained if he > had chosen the BSD licence for Ghostscript. He would have been able to make money by selling add-ons to ghostscript. Because he licensed it under GPL, he could only sell mods to his code. Had he licensed it under BSD, he'd be able to sell mods to an enhanced version of ghostscript. > My intent is not to start a GPL/BSD flamewar. I'm only saying the > GPL thing is not as black as it is painted out to be. Actually, I find that the popular press (Slashdot and other Linux mags) paint GPL whiter than it actually is. Free software related items on Slashdot for example, feature a GNU icon. I'm not saying that Slashdot is representative, but for the uninitiated, the nicer side of GPL is more visible than the problematic side. > Also, it's not only software, but in the age of quick and easy digital > copying, the whole copyright scheme has to be rethought. What's your proposal ? I don't think anyone can pass a law asking people to make all software free for public good. Only commercial enforcement of copyright laws becoming unviable, can change the status quo. But if there is enough money at stake, people will find ways of "digitally" enforcing copyright. > The current situation, of further and stricter controls on digital > copying being introduced every year, will work only in a police > state. Stallman's ideas are one possible answer for software, which > few people will accept, but his vocalness means people at least start > thinking about the issue instead of pretending it doesn't exist. For > music/creative writing/etc, Stallman himself agrees that a GPL-style > copyleft would not be a good idea. Do you have a reference to Stallman's statement on music etc ? Given the current controversy surrounding DVDs/MP3s/Free documentation license/ Free content license etc, I find it a little bit surprising. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003181755.JAA18402>