Re: GPL and BSD :) (was Re: Linux and Free BSD CDs

[Jim Jackson <nospam [at] scs.leeds.ac.uk>]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, C.Lamb wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > 
> > It also depends on what YOU the author of the software feel about the
> > issue. Many people spend a large amount of creative time on their 
> > software
> > and want to share it, source and all, with the world, but not have any one
> > else rip it off and use it in proprietary non-open source software for
> > profit. The GPL neatly prevents that - it is a good thing. The BSD 
> > licence does not prevent this.
> > 
> Wooohoo! a GPL vs. BSD flamefest!

Oh no it isn't. I amplifying Stevens comments on the differences between
the two licenses and their affects. It's upto the author to choose one
they are happy with. Indeed an extra option is to release source code
without any license whatever and state it is in the public domain etc.
Best to add a disclaimer :-) 

> ..... From what I have witnessed, the
> direct snarfing of code is very rare - I think MS did it with
> their IP stack for Win2000 - without feeding back code to the
> original source - It happens with FreeBSD where source changes
> from commercial entities are re-submitted for possible inclusion
> in later versions. The BSD style though not enforcing GPL
> openness doesn't preclude it, heck it's been open for many many 
> years and it ain't dead yet :).
> In addition, saying that GPL prevents privatising open source is like 
> saying law prevents crime - people not comitting crimes prevents 
> crime.

True, it doesn't stop rip-off - but it may give you redress if someone
breaks the terms of the license. The few cases where it appears to have
happenned, (lilo code being used in BeOS and some some kernel mods for a
special proprietary module ????) the fact that the "community" raised the
issue with the relevant people got it sorted PDQ - everyone seemed to act
honestly to sort out what appeared to be misunderstanding/misinterpretation

> Many years ago I wrote a small open source library for PS manipulation 
> and drawing. I was naive about licensing and hence it had none.
> About 2 years after release I recieved it back. It had undergone
> many changes and extensions but it still had the naming convention
> I had originally used and the sole additions at the top of the
> file were names of people with dates of changes implemented - and
> it still had no license (and to this day I presume).
> It was originally written as a helping hand for a sheep farmer in New 
> Zeland - he wanted to plot GIS info and commercial packages were
> too expensive.

The net community on the whole is remarkably honest - it's one of the joys
of being involved in it. As it grows, though, will it last?

cheers
Jim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.