Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:16:32 -0800 From: Brian Raynes <brian_raynes@dnr.state.ak.us> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand Together" Message-ID: <3B05D780.140DEB8A@dnr.state.ak.us> References: <20010518190114.E7708@wantadilla.lemis.com> <000001c0dfb7$949e85c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <20010519092859.F7708@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > > 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 agree with Greg completely on this point. I've been a lurker on several *BSD mailing lists and some other open-source related lists and I still don't understand the problem people have with GPL vs. BSD or other free/open licenses. But there definitely seems to be a nasty tone to many of the comments regarding the GPL on this and other BSD forums that could be interpreted as "fear". And why would programmers on the GPL side fear the BSD license? Unless I've completely missed something, they could quite easily make use of all the BSD code they like in GPL software. The idea that nothing in the original is lost if someone uses it elsewhere still applies, for both licenses. > >>> VA Linux, Red Hat, and all of those distributors, all of their > >>> business models are the same - at one end they suck in GPL code and > >>> at the other end spit out finished UNIX-like distributions, and make > >>> money doing it. > >> > >> They're not making money doing it. They're *trying* to make money > >> doing it. Not only that, but Red Hat has made huge contributions of GPL licensed code, including major parts of GNOME, their installer (copied and improved on by other distributors), RPM(even if I don't like it much, it is a big contribution and seems to have inspired much improvement in package management by others) and probably other pieces that I'm not aware of. People here and in even in some of the Linux forums don't seem to give them much credit for their faithfulness to the letter and spirit to the GPL. After saying all that in their defense, I should say that I like other Linux distributions better than Red Hat and I don't use GNOME or RPM if I can help it. I like the *bsds and ports/packages better. Still, Red Hat contributes back as much or more to GPL software than almost any large company. And whatever else you might criticize about GPL software, if a company is using it in compliance with the license, they cannot "steal" it or re-sell any of it without providing the source code of their "improvements" under the terms of the GPL also. BSD license allows companies to "suck in" the code and redistribute proprietary derivatives without contributing anything back. However, if that bothers you, don't release code under the BSD license. The BSD license appears to be for those who only want their software to be used - for any purpose others might find useful. It's very altruistic that way. The point of this is: Ted's criticism would apply more to companies using BSD code without contributing back than to any companies selling GPL code. > > Besides that, all of those people _personally_ made a lot of money > > 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. Are you sure Eric and others were able to sell their IPO shares before they fell? It is, IIRC, illegal to sell IPO shares before the passage of a certain amount of time, 6 months to a year maybe? That would have made Eric's millions a lot smaller - assuming that he actually tried to cash in his VALinux shares as soon as possible. It certainly makes news when Bill Gates sells significant amounts of MS shares. I haven't heard of the big names in the Linux IPOs selling off their shares. > >>> So, it's kind of a "friend of my enemy is my enemy" What I see in > >>> the future, is I see Microsoft porting MS Office to MacOS X - which > >>> is a hell of a lot closer to BSD then it is to Linux. I also see > >>> that as Microsoft continues to build the case against GPL and > >>> propgandize against it, that they are increasingly going to be > >>> holding up BSD as the "right" way to do Open Source. I'll believe that when I see it. They don't seem to agree that BSD license is the right way to release their own "open source" code. Of course using BSD code would be a different story. > >>> Increasingly, their aims and goals are going to be > >>> different than ours. The FSF works to make all software free software, and the GPL tries to perpetuate that. That's the only real difference in "their" goals and "our" goals. As I said above, the BSD license is used when the author wants their code used by as many programmers as possible. Using the GPL means that your software will only be used by programmers that write software that is also "free" by the GPL definition of free. Those are different aims and goals, but not of the sort that should cause so much friction between them. > >> Certainly if we take your viewpoint. You've made a lot of claims > >> there, but I don't see much substantiation, and the viewpoints are > >> very different from what I've experienced first-hand. I work with > >> some leading Linux people, and while there are many things I don't > >> like about Linux, I can't see anything like what you're claiming here. > > > > I judge the Linux crowd by the public statements they make and the > > public things that they do. I haven't really seen the public statements by the leading GPL people that are so anti-bsd as you claim. I don't know any of them first hand, but when RMS came to speak in our city, I went to listen. Many of the points he makes in a (very) lengthy discussion of the GPL/GNU project apply equally to the BSD. He just wants all software to be free. If all software was GPL software, there would be no real problem with anyone's use of anyone else's code. That's probably a bit of an idealistic (unrealistic?) vision, but then RMS seems comfortable in the role of visionary dreamer. That's a bit of a compliment, btw, society needs dreamers and visionaries to push the limits of the possible. > > There's a history of GPL people > > publically putting down the BSD license, 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. > > There's a history of BSD people publically putting down the GPL > license, 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. When they attempt to make up for it, some BSD > people get up on their hind legs and doubt their motives. I agree with both of these comments, but then these "crowds" are made up of many individuals, making it difficult to put specific words in the mouths of the whole "crowd" just because one person gets irritated and spouts off. > > I don't see the same posturing from BSD. > > That must be your perspective, then, modulo your definition of > "posturing". You want those 350 mail messages? If that's not enough, > I can send you another 400 or so off the less rabid Brett Glass rants. I've not saved all that, but I've read too much of it. > I can see at least as much evidence that some BSD people fear the GPL, > possibly more. I think it's the basis of this thread. Disappointing to me, but I believe that Greg is correct here. > > 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. Sad, but true. I happen to think Bruce is a pretty bright guy who has a lot of practical common sense to go along with his free software beliefs. He doesn't seem afraid to step on toes in calling it how he sees it. A lot of Linux people have taken offense to Bruce's comments at times too. I think people should be less offended by this sort of honest, blunt talk. I much prefer it to so much fake niceness. Basically, if you don't like his comments, the proper response is to do or say something to change his mind - at least you know what he really thinks. > Greg > -- > When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the > original text. > For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html I tried to comply, but Netscape no longer works as it did. I believe it still wraps outgoing messages whether I like it or not, it won't take 0 as an entry anymore. I do much better when I have PINE for email. Brian Raynes 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?3B05D780.140DEB8A>