Linux.com

This is by far the best article you've ever written. Of course, we've heard it all before, but it bears repeating once in a while.

#

Yes, yes! For once an anonymously posted comment I can whole-heartedly agree with.

We all need to keep a clear image of what is REALLY going on before us - 'lest we forget'.

#

Heil, Richard.

#

This is really your best article ever (and you sure had good ones in the past!) if only because it reminds of the most important fact behind the GPL: it made the Linux kernel possible.

I understand that it would have been shall we say "delicate" to put this in your article, but I will add it nonetheless:

Without the GPL, there would be no Linux (the kernel). But who made the GPL possible? RMS of course! Hence, no RMS - no Linux.

So all you open source zealots repeat after me:

If no RMS, no free software values
If no free software values, no GPL
If no GPL, no Linux kernel
If no Linux kernel, no "open source"

Got it? You owe your beloved "open source" to the man you love so much to trash and his "communnist/socialist/anarchist/liberal/hippie/et<nobr>c<wbr></nobr> " ideas.

Think about it before you defame him or his views next time!

#

It is a matter of presentation. Smart dedicated people tend to be unlikeable. RMS has a rather extreme case of unlikeablity. I think he could actually serve his cause better by letting people like Moglen be the public face of Free Software. Some of RMS' disciples don't have the same "room polarizing" effects that RMS himself has.

#

i'm bewildered by the number of people who say RMS is polarizing. he seems like a smart, mildly eccentric geek. wtf are people expecting?

#

wtf are people expecting?

that's easy! they are expecting *anyone* as long as this person says that greed, money, capitalism, and, of course, "fun" (or the "pursuit of happiness" for those who fancy themselves as "intellectuals") are the ultimate values in life. The *only* valid ideals to pursue. All RMS's stuff about "freedom", "sharing", "ethics" or "values" pisses them off into an agressive fenzy simply because it makes them, and their "ideals", look mundane, vulgar and basic.

why should anyone care about offending people with an ethical conscience worthy of amoebas or blue-green algae?!

#

because it makes them, and their "ideals", look mundane, vulgar and basic.

why should anyone care about offending people with an ethical conscience worthy of amoebas or blue-green algae?!

Were you speaking for yourself above ?

#

Open source existed before linux, and would exist without linux. No RMS would just mean more software would be released under a free license, instead of a communist license by ignorant people who don't know better.

#

Sotware that was developed the way Open Source is did exist. The term "Open Source" and the philosophy behind it is a direct result of marketing Linux to corporations.

#

my friend, "open source" as a concept did *not* exist, but the phenomenon of releasing code did, of course. that is also utterly irrelevant because in itself available code does not make something like the Linux kernel possible since nothing protects it. What made it possible is the *GPL* (not just some nebulous code availability). If you do not understand this - just read this article carefully.

but then, considering that you speak of "communist licenses" I am probably wasting my time: you are as ignorant of the GPL, as you are of communism and, I strongly suspect, of geography, history, languages, or even the taste of real bread or coffee...

go hug a flag!

#

Linus didn't originally release Linux under the GPL. He did, however, realease it under a license similar to it.

#

I do not completely agree with RMS. The first thing is that there is no reason to mingle philosophy and morality with software business. Most of the people in the business don't understand and don't care. I don't care, too. I think that many people are opposed to GPL, and other similar things, like Open Source, GNU, etc. because of the RMS preaching. Many people do not like someone preaching to them, and if they sometimes do, then they go to church.

I don't think that RMS should tell me what is wrong and what is right. There are many projects that do benefit from GPL, GPL is usefull when applied properly, it has sense, and let's stop at that point.

DG

#

You don't have to agree with RMS. As to your statement about mingling philosophy, morality, and software. YOU don't have to. but, RMS did and the tangible result of that was the GPL. It is the legal manifestation of a fuzzy concept of sharing software in a certain, "FREE" way. What it does is ensure that while you may not agree with the overarching philosophy of the GPL, if you use GPL'd software, your actions will legally have to adhere to those philosophy's.

In my opinion, Brilliant.

#

That's wrong! Open source has its roots back to BSD UNIX. There were open source OSes before the Linux kernel + BSD tools + GNU tools ever got mixed. FreeBSD is much older than any Linux distribution.

#

nobody put an = sign between open source and linux kernel. the OP only stated the obvious: without the GPL there would have been no Linux kernel and the without the Linux kernel the open source *MOVEMENT* would hardly have any relevance. BSD is neat and peachy, but, no offense intended, it never came close to the real revolution triggered by GNU/Linux. (go and count BSD magazines in a newstand if you doubt this, then look at conferences, then look at MS ad campaigns, etc. etc. etc.).

sure, there were hominids before Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But, say, Australopithecines can hardly be looked at as in the same league. you see what I mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Actually, that isn't correct.

The concept of releasing source code has roots back *before* BSD Unix, because in those days that was the way software was shared. The PC revolution and shrink-wrapped software changed that.

As for FreeBSD being older than any Linux distribution, that also is wrong. The linux kernel was initially released in Oct. 1991. FreeBSD forked from the stalled 386BSD project in Dec. 1993. (NetBSD is actually the oldest of the currently developed Free BSD systems.)

Also, at the time the Linux kernel was being started, the BSD code was still encumbered and there was an ongoing lawsuit to determine it's status. Eventually 4.4BSD Lite 1 (and later Lite 2) was released that was considered "Free".

#

RTFA, dude<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Joe gives credit to Stallman.

Stallman is NOT the GPL. He might be the Thomas Paine of this particular revolution (or maybe the Samuel Adams), but he is NOT the GPL.

#

Read the Fine Comment dude...

He proposes this as something missing from the article. It isn't an attack on the article.

#

thanks! my post sure was *not* an attack on this excellent article, or on Joe. all I wanted to point out is that some "open source" zealots might want to ponder some of the implications of RMS's work.

actually, Joe does indirectly say so much in his article - I just wanted to stress this. that's all.

and also, RMS "is" not the GPL, but he is the one who made it possible. hate him to your heart's content - but that's a fact. I personally choose to be deeply thankful to him for this.

#

...but more how they did it and are still doing it.

You have MY explicit permission to amass as large a fortune as you can without major ethical/legal breaches. TMU knows Linus *should* be *anywhere* near that rich.

#

Linus does get kickbacks from Nvidia and ATI you
don't have to worry about it.

#

Very eloquently put, and I fully concur.

Unfortunately, Apple Computer, which I believe had a great opportunity with OS X, also decided to take the path of trashing the GPL, while embracing the BSD license. Why? Same reason Microsoft did. Remember that Apple, who had the lion's share of the market back in the Apple ][ days, was arrogant, arrogant, arrogant (they still are, BTW). It was Apple who was the one most eager to sue people for anything that they felt they could get away with.

Today, it is Microsoft. Tomorrow, it might be Sun, or IBM, or Intel, or whomever. Who it is doesn't matter; any bosses of any proprietary software development company would love to see the GPL eliminated somehow, for the reasons listed in this article. The GPL is our check on any such company or person, and this is why I believe the GPL must continue to succeed and be used pervasively. The way I support the GPL is by voting with my dollars. I do not buy hardware which does not work with Free Software. Period.

I would love to feel like I could buy one of those new Mac Minis. However, I won't. The reasons are twofold:

1.) You can't upgrade your DRAM or hard disk yourself without voiding the warranty. By comparison, my UltraSPARC, Athlon, Pentium 4, and PowerPC G3 briQ boxes (the latter running Yellow Dog Linux) have no such limitations.

2.) Apple has a very nasty habit of not releasing the specs for their hardware so that Free Software will fully work on it. Terra Soft Solutions frequently has to reverse-engineer Apple's hardware. To date, the iMac G5 doesn't even boot the Linux kernel, and the eMac has no support for video and thus is unusable with GNU/Linux.

As for the "oh, they're just protecting their intellectual property" argument, I own too may boxes of too many architectures, all of which work perfectly with GNU/Linux, to accept that argument. There is no good reason to not release the specs for your hardware so that people can write Free Software drivers. None. When Apple changes its tune that way, then I will again look at purchasing a Mac Mini.

--Terrell Prude', Jr.

#

Yes, you can upgrade your Mac mini without voiding the warranty. I have no idea why anti-Apple types keep posting this FUD.

I've got lots of Linux systems. My main user workstation is an iMac. It's just that good.

#

If you can answer something with good arguments dont call it FUD.

#

[OP]
"1.) You can't upgrade your DRAM or hard disk yourself without voiding the warranty. "

""If you can answer something with good arguments dont call it FUD. ""

So you've lowered your standards as to what constitutes "a good argument". It's still wrong. And yes it's FUD if someone keeps repeating it, knowing it's not true, regardless of justification.

#

though it seems like an incredible regression
backwards from apple's slick unix, see figure 1.3 at

http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20050124-newsle<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ter.xml

#

I've been a Mac person for a long time, and the Mac's OS X is in my opinion a masterpiece of OS elegance. Their included software is smooth, and their hardware is high quality. I've always thought Macs were worth the price. I have two at this point -- an iBook for me, and an eMac for my wife.

BUT, I have to agree with you about the Apple attitude. They have their own version of lock-in, and they're way too quick with the lawsuits. I bought a cheap Linux box three years ago, and it is slowly growing in functionality and usefulness, both as Linux matures and my own knowledge increases. When it comes time to replace these Apple machines, they'll be replaced with Linux. And I'm hoping that I can help, at some point, increase the usefulness of Linux even more some day by putting a useful application or two into the GPL family.

#

Can we get Steve Jobs and Richard Stallmen to
give each other a big kiss on stage first before
returning to reality.

#

Where?

#

`Trashing the GPL'? Just like all the BSD-licensed OSes out there, Darwin makes extensive use of GPLed software, notably GCC.

If it trashes the GPL, it's odd that GCC is the system compiler, and that Apple employs so many GCC hackers.

#

C is a "portable assembly language." It enables programmers to be highly productive while producing efficient code. Other languages, notably C++, have lots of hidden mechanisms and run-time costs that aren't transparently evident from a quick inspection of the code. Bytecode languages are even worse. And don't get me started on scripting languages.

C provides the foundation on which the UNIX and Linux operating systems have been built. It was invented by Dennis Richie, one of the most brilliant men in software, and was good enough for Ken Thompson, Bill Joy, Richard Stallman, and Linus Torvalds.

All software should be written in C.

#

So if it's in C, you don't mind if it's programmed by capable programmers or not?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

It was invented by Dennis Richie, one of the most brilliant men in software, and was good enough for Ken Thompson, Bill Joy, Richard Stallman, and Linus Torvalds.

Actually, Richard Stallman's favorite language is LISP; though he writes in C for speed-dependent stuff. Emacs is an example, the core is written in C but much of the editor is written in RMS's own version of LISP, which makes it customizable by the end user. Bill Joy of course invented the C-Shell's not-extremely C-like really script language, though it is inferior to the Bourne shell for scripting. (It has some great user-interface features though.) The inventors of Unix specifically made it easy to script because of all of the little utilities such as sed and awk which contribute to that. Perl is just a condensed version of the Unix scripting toolkit in one language.

All software should be written in C.

All software should be written in whatever works best.

#

As great as C is, I love C also, but trying to sell C as enabling programmers to be highly productive is crazy. Then comparing C to other languages and scripting languages that are used for different purposes is rediculous. Reconsider revising your text, for those who have been around the block. Consider the many other factors that help programmers to be productive. Versioning systems, coding standards, good management, good clients, good communication, good work environment, libaries that are already built for specific languages, and other good languages (such as scripting languages) that eliminate much of the busy work you find in C. When you said "don't get me started on scripting languages", that's like begging for a war on words which is pointless. Why did you even include this in your comment? Advice to you and everyone, use your head and make the most logical choice of language for the job. You don't want to make a website out of C. You don't want to make hardware drivers out of PHP. As a no brainer, we all know given specific needs, which language is better for specific needs.

#

Straight over the gnu/zealots' heads.

#

I got it, but the analogy was a poor one. Joe Barr's argument is that the GPL "works best", if what you are working on is a progressively improving software architecture that is free and open for everyone to participate in. He's comparing it to other licenses which don't guarantee the same freedom.

A technical choice of languages isn't the same thing. C is free. But so is Python. So is C++. There are a number of programming languages that allow you to be productive in different ways, and are free for the using. But there is only one GPL.

#

"But there is only one GPL."

A new version of GPL is coming out that will change
the world as we know it.

#

Good job Mr Warthawg! As Linux and F/OSS continue to grow and attract hordes of new users, this sort of thing needs to be said more frequently. Because the newbies don't know this stuff, and don't understand how important it is. Thank you.

#

There are some good criticisms of the BSD licenses out there. Unfortunately, none of them appear in this article.

Fine. You may be thinking, "I can do that already with software that's in the public domain, or covered by other open source licenses, like the BSD-style license." You're right, you can. But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.

One of the big points of confusion of GPL pundits is that software should be free because it is fundamentally a non-rivalous resource. But that it is possible to take those freedoms away for the next user without specific protections.

Once something is put into the public domain, there are potentially an infinite number of copies that can be produced of that work. Disney has in no way threatened the freedom to use the Bothers Grimm, or Beethoven's 5th by incorporating those works into movies with copyright wrapped up. Anybody can check check out a copy, transcribe a copy, and publish an infinite number of copies of their own.

Microsoft, for example, took the BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack from the public and swallowed it up in its proprietary product line. Then sold back to the public what it had taken from them. Legally, of course. The BSD-style license offers no protection against that sort of thing.

Of course. The BSD license is not supposed to offer protection against that sort of thing. The fact that BSD-licensed code can be imported into almost any product (including BTW, large chunks of Linux) makes it good for publishing reference implementations of critical protocols. In a similar note, the fact that the first http browser and server were released into the public domain helped to kick-start the spread of the World Wide Web. (In addition, the widespread use of BSD-licensed code in the Microsoft TCP/IP stack is something that is <A HREF="http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357" title="kuro5hin.org">open for debate.</a kuro5hin.org>)

Now of course, there is a good reason for objecting to the BSD license. If you are working on code on your own time, it is one thing to let joe user copy it, it is quite another for your code to become the base of a commercial product. However for people working under goverment grants to advance the state of all technology, it's just easier to cash the paycheck and release under a non-restrictive license.

They've done the same thing with Kerberos, except worse. They made their version of Kerberos work fully only with their servers. Public pressure forced them to provide documentation for their closed-fisted proprietary pirated version, but they attached a restrictive license to the documentation which made it impossible for it to be used in free software.

Well, I'm a bit skeptical on this point. To start with, all public protocols are vulnerable to "embrace and extend." All someone has to do is create their own clean-room implementation of the protocol. Included within the protocol were specifications for site and vedor-specific extensions.

Secondly, releasing the reference implementation under the MIT license did the then-necessary job of creating a secure network login infrastructure that could be incorporated into commercial unixes and client software. I think that we really need to remember 1990 here: Linux did not exist, BSD was mired in legal problems, the LGPL was still under development, and most systems were still using plain-text logins over unsecure networks.

Third, GPL software also frequently extends standards in ways to promote interdependency among its products. Examples include: gcc, bash, gsed, gawk, and gmake.

Fourth, even with this singular case of appropriation, it does not seem that non-copyleft software is harmed that much. OpenSSH and OpenSSL have been more of a threat to Kerberos than Microsoft. The long-term health of python, perl, and postgresql seem to suggest that there are other barriers to the bogeyman of big industry forking non-copyleft software.

#

... a compelling response to Joe's article. The only trouble is that it was completely unreadable. Do you need a couple of URLs to sites that explain the basic HTML tags? I'd suggest checking out the hows and whys of the <P> tag for starters. (Frankly, I'm surprised you went ahead and clicked on "submit" after seeing your post in the preview.)

#

Eventually those problems would vanish, if newsforge just supported Unix line breaks and not only MS-DOS/Windows CRLFs?

#

If you choose to post in html, then you have to use the "P" tags.

If you choose "Plain old text", then you can just press enter...

But best... if you choose "Extrans" then you will have the magic you were expecting! (I belive... but, I have never tried)

#

Did not read it now!

#

There are some good criticisms of the BSD licenses out there. Unfortunately, none of them appear in this article.

Fine. You may be thinking, "I can do that already with software that's in the public domain, or covered by other open source licenses, like the BSD-style license." You're right, you can. But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.

One of the big points of confusion of GPL pundits is that software should be free because it is fundamentally a non-rivalous resource. But that it is possible to take those freedoms away for the next user without specific protections. Once something is put into the public domain, there are potentially an infinite number of copies that can be produced of that work. Disney has in no way threatened the freedom to use the Bothers Grimm, or Beethoven's 5th by incorporating those works into movies with copyright wrapped up. Anybody can check check out a copy, transcribe a copy, and publish an infinite number of copies of their own.

Microsoft, for example, took the BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack from the public and swallowed it up in its proprietary product line. Then sold back to the public what it had taken from them. Legally, of course. The BSD-style license offers no protection against that sort of thing.

Of course. The BSD license is not supposed to offer protection against that sort of thing. The fact that BSD-licensed code can be imported into almost any product (including BTW, large chunks of Linux) makes it good for publishing reference implementations of critical protocols.

In a similar note, the fact that the first http browser and server were released into the public domain helped to kick-start the spread of the World Wide Web. (In addition, the widespread use of BSD-licensed code in the Microsoft TCP/IP stack is something that is <A HREF="http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357" title="kuro5hin.org">open for debate</a kuro5hin.org>.)

Now of course, there is a good reason for objecting to the BSD license. If you are working on code on your own time, it is one thing to let joe user copy it, it is quite another for your code to become the base of a commercial product. However for people working under goverment grants to advance the state of all technology, it's just easier to cash the paycheck and release under a non-restrictive license.

They've done the same thing with Kerberos, except worse. They made their version of Kerberos work fully only with their servers. Public pressure forced them to provide documentation for their closed-fisted proprietary pirated version, but they attached a restrictive license to the documentation which made it impossible for it to be used in free software.

Well, I'm a bit skeptical on this point. To start with, all public protocols are vulnerable to "embrace and extend." All someone has to do is create their own clean-room implementation of the protocol. Included within the protocol were specifications for site and vedor-specific extensions.

Secondly, releasing the reference implementation under the MIT license did the then-necessary job of creating a secure network login infrastructure that could be incorporated into commercial unixes and client software. I think that we really need to remember 1990 here: Linux did not exist, BSD was mired in legal problems, the LGPL was still under development, and most systems were still using plain-text logins over unsecure networks.

Third, GPL software also frequently extends standards in ways to promote interdependency among its products. Examples include: gcc, bash, gsed, gawk, and gmake. Fourth, even with this singular case of appropriation, it does not seem that non-copyleft software is harmed that much.

OpenSSH and OpenSSL have been more of a threat to Kerberos than Microsoft. The long-term health of python, perl, and postgresql seem to suggest that there are other barriers to the bogeyman of big industry forking non-copyleft software.

#

The first sentence of your article leaves me wondering how much research you really did. You're talking about the "GNU General Public License" - not the "GNU Public License".

Please forgive me if I don't get around to reading the rest of the article.

#

Thanks for the correction.

Joe Barr

#

For goodness' sakes!
There's no need to nut around for this. Everyone knows what the author's talking about, and therefore the title is in no way misleading.
It's not like there is 'GNU General Public License' with which people will get confused.

#

Preview, submit, won't accept.

Copy-paste, submit, oops! Format field reset to HTML formatted, crash.

I find it hugely frustrating that GPL supporters consistently feel the need to invoke FUD against other license types.

Many of these claims are questionable:

Fine. You may be thinking, "I can do that already with software that's in the public domain, or covered by other open source licenses, like the BSD-style license." You're right, you can. But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.

One of the more frustrating aspects of GPL advocacy is how GPL advocates will sometimes switch from talking about software as a non-rivalous resource, to a rivalous resource. For example, the fact that Disney made a movie based on Snow White has not harmed anybody's freedoms in regards to Snow White. Since that folktale exists in the public domain, anybody can create a potentially unlimited quantity of variations, retellings, and copies of the source material. We can't grab Disney's particular vision of Snow White, but that does not block our ability to build our own.

Likewise, in all of the examples cited of appropriation of non-copyleft software, freedom of access to the original has not been harmed. One can take the TCP/IP stack, Kerberos, and still freely use them.

Microsoft, for example, took the BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack from the public and swallowed it up in its proprietary product line. Then sold back to the public what it had taken from them. Legally, of course. The BSD-style license offers no protection against that sort of thing.

Although this is presented as fact, it is in fact highly questionable. Some people say that Microsoft did swallow up the BSD TCP/IP stack. In which case, I would say that it is a good thing to build on a reference implementation that is known to work. However, other reports suggest a complete re-write.

They've done the same thing with Kerberos, except worse. They made their version of Kerberos work fully only with their servers. Public pressure forced them to provide documentation for their closed-fisted proprietary pirated version, but they attached a restrictive license to the documentation which made it impossible for it to be used in free software.

Well, I think it is helpful to remember 1990 when Kerberos was completed: no linux, no LGPL, BSD mired in court, and thousands of users at hundreds of college campuses connecting to services using plain-text logins over unsecured networks. The release of Kerberos under the MIT license was a good thing because it enabled Kerberos to be implemented under IRIX, Sun/OS, AIX, and UNIX, as well as bundeled into client programs for Macintosh and Windows. The other side of the Kerberos story is that the MIT license enabled interoperability of Kerberos implementations from dozens of vendors. In other words, with the exception of Microsoft, it did exactly what it was intended to do.

Blaiming the license for Microsoft's ability to "embrace and extend" a protocol rather that Microsoft's willingness to break compatibility seems to be rather odd. After all, Microsoft does this with most standards regardless of whether they have access to a reference implementation: sql, javascript, java, css and html are good examples, with smtp possibly being added next.

Meanwhile, Kerberos appears to be the exception to the rule. The history of perl, python, the BSDs, openSSL, openSSH, and postgresql suggest that such predatory forks of non-copyleft software are the exception and not the rule. Meanwhile, I don't see that anyone is complaining about public reference implementations of DES, AES, Blowfish and Twofish.

There are certainly some very good reasons to prefer copyleft licenses. However, much of what GPL advocates claim about non-copyleft licenses is just FUD.

#

I pretty much agree with what you wrote. I have nothing personally against RMS or the GPL. But I do think they get carried away sometimes. This whole issue is relevent to me (not just BSD, GPL) because I'm thinking of releasing some software, and naturally I want it to be a sucess...for everyone. Yes they're bad corporations, just as they're bad individuals. I don't think any license is going to provide protection against that. The question should be. Which license causes the least amount of harm while providing the greatest amount of good.

#

Looks like you missed the basic tenet of the GPL, which prevents somebody from taking your code for free and giving nothing back to you and yet sell the same (or modified) code and pocket all the money from it. BSD license allows that and thats why they are not so popular among the OSS users. The nothing-for-something is a horrible ecosystem and is not going to take you anywhere in the long run. Non-copyleft OSS has had its time when the GPL was not there. With the GPL in the world, people have realized that this is what they want and hence the immense popularity of this license.

#

"Looks like you missed the basic tenet of the GPL, which prevents somebody from taking your code for free and giving nothing back to you and yet sell the same (or modified) code and pocket all the money from it. BSD license allows that and thats why they are not so popular among the OSS users."

Are you saying that others can't take GPL code and not give back? I'm certain Linksys will be surprised to hear that (amoung others). Also I bet you'll find more software licensed under a non-copyleft license than not. Go look through your system and locate all the non-GPL software and delete it. Bet your system ceases to function in no time. Brag all you want at how the GPL is a better license, but reality speaks louder than words.

#

"Are you saying that others can't take GPL code and not give back? I'm certain Linksys will be surprised to hear that (amoung others)."

What linksys did was ILLEGAL. Get it? And once they were caught, they released their modified code. You can't stop people from pirating software, and to use "But people will pirate GPL" as an arguement is just plain stupid.

What's YOUR problem with the GPL? In my eyes, it's fantastic.

Consider this: IBM needs Linux to be better at SMP. They write some new code, and BAM, we have better SMP. All of us. So Novell gets better SMP, and they decide they need better USB support. So they write some better USB code, and BAM, we all get it, and so does IBM. Then RedHat says "We need better SATA drivers." They write some, and BAM, IBM, Novell, and the rest of us all get better SATA drivers.

Do you see what's happening here? Everyone benefits from it. That's why so many people contribute to the GPL. When you make something better, not only you get better software but so does everyone else. And the opposite will also happen.

With a BSD style license, IBM could take the kernel, add better SMP, and then say "Only our Linux has better SMP. You must buy from us if you want better SMP."

I don't understand why people can't comprehend how GPL benefits everyone and prevents vendor lock-in.

You're so ignorant it makes me embarassed to be the same species as you.

#

"With a BSD style license, IBM could take the kernel, add better SMP, and then say "Only our Linux has better SMP. You must buy from us if you want better SMP.""

If you want "IBMs" SMP yes. If someone else wants to add their own and release it.? They can do so. You also forget that IBM could write their SMP in such a way that all the rest of the code would be free, and IBMs SMP would be under a different license. e.g. LGPL. That's how proprietary applications can run on Linux regardless of the OS license. That's ALLOWED by the GPL. It's also how Nvidia can get away with a binary driver, irrespective of your precious GPL.

"You're so ignorant it makes me embarassed to be the same species as you."

The fact that you missed the above doesn't speak highly of you either.

#

You can not combine GPL code with LGPL code.
The kernel is all GPL, so there is not a chance to take any non-GPL part. No one can release a kernel with his own proprietary part. Modules might escape somehow, but there is no chance for SMP to be put into a module considering its nature.
You seem not good at how SMP works. It is not an application but the most entangled part in the kernel.
This is why GPL is so powerful. Only loosely couple code can use LGPL to seperate the proprietary part. For example, application software can be proprietary and linked with a library under LGPL. Consider LGPL a friendly gesture to the proprietary vendors.
And you do'nt understand LGPL either. The LGPL code itself is not for pirating either. It just allows other proprietary part to link to it. You can not take LGPL code or release your code LGPL and hide it.

#

Looks like you missed the basic tenet of the GPL, which prevents somebody from taking your code for free and giving nothing back to you and yet sell the same (or modified) code and pocket all the money from it. BSD license allows that and thats why they are not so popular among the OSS users. The nothing-for-something is a horrible ecosystem and is not going to take you anywhere in the long run. Non-copyleft OSS has had its time when the GPL was not there. With the GPL in the world, people have realized that this is what they want and hence the immense popularity of this license.

Not popular? Non-copyleft licenses include python, perl, postgresql, OpenSSH, OpenSSL and Apache. Now I think the GPL is also a good thing in many contexts. But the BSD license is also a good thing in many contexts.

#

I don't think there needs to be the GPL with all software. Use whatever license you want, it's your code.

But really. Without the GPL on the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux just wouldn't have been as popular, and it wouldn't have attracted as many developers. The BSD licence was around for many years and BSD never took itself to the level that Linux already has.

So with no Linux, apache wouldn't be as popular, OpenSSH and OpenSSL may never have been concieved, and python/perl would be nitche languages for some UNIX machines.

The GPL is the vehicle that carries all these other things along. Because we have an OS that nobody can take over, close, and call their own and because everyone benefits from all the work that companies are investing in Linux, it's a self fueling system.

If I write a cool utility or application and release it for free, I'd want any improvements people make to MY software released back to me and anyone else that uses it. I don't want my code to be sold by some corporation because they have a user base, meanwhile all the other users of my software get nothing.

#

But really. Without the GPL on the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux just wouldn't have been as popular, and it wouldn't have attracted as many developers. The BSD licence was around for many years and BSD never took itself to the level that Linux already has.

Interesting bit of confusion there. The BSD license is not the BSD operating system. But you also have to remember that Linux had a two-year head-start on FreeBSD. And if you look at the adoption curves, the BSDs have been almost exactly two years behind.

And actually, I don't see the GPL as the driving force behind Linux adoption. I didn't run Slackware because of the GPL, I ran it because it was a free unix that would run on a (literal) 386 processor that I had available.

So with no Linux, apache wouldn't be as popular, OpenSSH and OpenSSL may never have been concieved, and python/perl would be nitche languages for some UNIX machines.

This is doubtful. GPL software came into existence alongside a rich tradition of code sharing.

If I write a cool utility or application and release it for free, I'd want any improvements people make to MY software released back to me and anyone else that uses it. I don't want my code to be sold by some corporation because they have a user base, meanwhile all the other users of my software get nothing.

Which makes the GPL a good license for you. Once again. The point is not that the GPL is a bad license, but that non-copyleft licenses are good licenses and not half as bad as the FUD in this article.

#

"If I write a cool utility or application and release it for free, I'd want any improvements people make to MY software released back to me and anyone else that uses it. I don't want my code to be sold by some corporation because they have a user base, meanwhile all the other users of my software get nothing."

Substitute military for business and you see one of the pitfalls of the GPL.* Yes BSD code can be used by the military, but at least the BSDers are more honest when approaching the world external to their own.

*All those "peace-loving" GPLers are getting their knickers in a knot.

#

But the GPLers know how to suck the big bone
when it comes to NSA and SELinux.

#

Please don't confuse issues. TCP/IP and Kerberos are protocols. Of course, it's difficult to put a protocol under the GPL and consider it fair use of the GPL. The implementation of protocols is a different matter though.

The problem of MS copying the BSD implementation of the TCP/IP stack is that it seems unfair from a moral/geek point of view. Why would such a huge company, with all it's money and resources, just copy that code (which they are legally allowed to do under the BSD licence) and then just make tons of money from it and put a nice technology out of business (NetWare) and replace it with an inferiour technology (NetBIOS/SMB). Was this the intend of the BSD licence?

Use a licence for what it's good for. But consider this: all the new 'believers' in Open Source wouldn't be so supportive if BSD were the only licence. In the competitive world of big business, a 'tit-for-tat' licence goes down much better than a 'nil-for-tat' licence. With the former, code of company A is added to the code of competitor B. Now and forever. Both sides are enriched which is a win-win in the short and long run. With the latter, code of company A is just free to take for competitor B. Now, B can make it's own modification without A having access to those new possibilities. Hmm, try explaining that to your shareholders.

#

The problem of MS copying the BSD implementation of the TCP/IP stack is that it seems unfair from a moral/geek point of view.

Which moral/geek point of view are we talking about here? I can think of nothing more geekier than working to improve the state of knowledge in a field. Which is where I think that there is a major contradiction in GPL advocacy. "Software is knowledge," well if you treat software as knowledge then you start getting into pointy haired boss speak, "software is a product."

I don't see what could be more fair than to put out the knowledge in a form that anyone can use. If there is a problem with predatory actions by businesses, attack that business model rather than the license.

Why would such a huge company, with all it's money and resources, just copy that code (which they are legally allowed to do under the BSD licence) and then just make tons of money from it and put a nice technology out of business (NetWare) and replace it with an inferiour technology (NetBIOS/SMB). Was this the intend of the BSD licence?

Well once again. It is not clear how much Microsoft used BSD-licensed code. And secondly, I think it is naive to believe that Microsoft would be open about any code they used. Microsoft would have acted in a predatory manner against Netcraft regardless of which TCP/IP stack they chose to use.

In addition, I'm sensing a double-standard here. Why is it permissable for Linux to used non-copyleft code and software to gain a competitive advantage in the market?

Use a licence for what it's good for. But consider this: all the new 'believers' in Open Source wouldn't be so supportive if BSD were the only licence. In the competitive world of big business, a 'tit-for-tat' licence goes down much better than a 'nil-for-tat' licence. With the former, code of company A is added to the code of competitor B. Now and forever. Both sides are enriched which is a win-win in the short and long run. With the latter, code of company A is just free to take for competitor B. Now, B can make it's own modification without A having access to those new possibilities. Hmm, try explaining that to your shareholders.

Which is one of the things that convinces me that the debate between GPL/BSD is a matter of culture rather than actual pragmatics. Certainly in the context of corporate competition, I think the GPL is the better license. It would be foolish for Novell to publish Evolution under a non-copyleft license. And this is a valid reason to choose the GPL.

However, the BSD and the MIT licenses come out of academic contexts, with a slightly different incentive structure. Within those contexts there is traditionally a strong ethos for sharing knowledge, and your paychecks for next year are likely to depend on how widely published you are this year.

And I'm really not certain who is arguing that BSD should be the only license. I like both copyleft and non-copyleft licenses and choose from both. What I'm arguing is that many of the arguments made about non-copyleft licenses are FUD that don't stand up to closer examination.

#

>>>I don't see what could be more fair than to put out the knowledge in a form that anyone can use. If there is a problem with predatory actions by businesses, attack that business model rather than the license.

That's exactly what the GPL does. Anyone can use it. And nobody can take it away.

If I write a tool that does A through X, and I give it away, and you add Y and Z, and sell the whole alphabet, then I have done most of your work for you. Not that I mind, but if that's the case, I don't want to see you claiming the whole alphabet as your own, and burying it in a draconian EULA. I saved you a lot of hard work by my choice to share -- in return, I expect you to share your contributions as well.

Nothing could be more simple, and more fair. And the original article is right: the "Open Source" explosion would not have been possible without the "Free Software" concept -- regardless of what came first.

#

If I write a tool that does A through X, and I give it away, and you add Y and Z, and sell the whole alphabet, then I have done most of your work for you. Not that I mind, but if that's the case, I don't want to see you claiming the whole alphabet as your own, and burying it in a draconian EULA. I saved you a lot of hard work by my choice to share -- in return, I expect you to share your contributions as well.

Nothing could be more simple, and more fair. And the original article is right: the "Open Source" explosion would not have been possible without the "Free Software" concept -- regardless of what came first.

Well, shouldn't fair be defined by the person releasing his work out to the world? To me, "fairness" is largely incompatible with "strings attached." Certainly it is possible that someone might take my non-copyleft works and use them in selfish ways. But that's their problem.

In some cases, I see the benefits of a "no strings attached" approach as outweighing the risks of commercial appropriation. And so far, the history of non-copyleft software and the public domain seems to suggest that this generally seems to be the case.

"Free Software" was largely invented by BSD and MIT. The GPL came later.

#

If I write a tool that does A through X, and I give it away, and you add Y and Z, and sell the whole alphabet, then I have done most of your work for you. Not that I mind, but if that's the case, I don't want to see you claiming the whole alphabet as your own, and burying it in a draconian EULA.

This is incorrect. It's the same mistake made tirelessly by GPL zealots day in and day out. Sigh.

If I add Y&Z to your (BSD licensed) implementation of A-X, I cannot claim the whole alphabet as my own. I must still acknowledge your authorship of A-X. Nor is your implementation of A-X 'buried' in my draconian EULA. Anyone may still get the A-X implementation from you or anyone else who distributes it. Only those who want my Y&Z additions need come for my code. Or they may code their own Y&Z, to release under BSD, GPL, or any other license they wish.

If I write something I want to give to everyone, F/OSS user or not, licensing it BSD-style has the best possibility of penetration. GPL will limit my penetration to the F/OSS worlds only. I want to keep that choice, thanks.

#

The problem is, you're still using MY A-X code, that I developed, and whether you keep the copyright notices on it or not, you are profiting from my work, and giving nothing back. The GPL allows me to say you CANNOT use my code unless you give up some of your own. With the BSD license, I've essentially lost control of my work. What you've done is essentially become a code parasite, and I'm the hapless host.

Yes, if you want to give it away as a gift to the world, sure, you can use the BSD license. But if you want your gift to keep on giving, and growing, you'll use the GPL. It's a question of value.

#

Microsoft ships the GPL licensed GNU Compiler toolset in Interix with their <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/645wv" title="tinyurl.com">Windows Services for UNIX</a tinyurl.com> ( or, according to tongue in cheek Stallman logic, <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/5vcmv" title="tinyurl.com">GNU/Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX</a tinyurl.com> )

#

Oh man, what a laugh. NewForge? Hardly. More like TrollForge.

This is why Linux will never be accepted: It's users can get past their Messiah complex.

#

Umm... Yeah... I don't know where you've been for the past 5 years, but Linux has already been accepted... Yes, I realize, I got trolled, but this glaring error just had to be corrected.

#

I guess this highly depends on the definition of "accepted". On the server, you could say it's been accepted. On the desktop, however, it's no where close to being accepted.

#

Yes, only in the US which is only a small part of the world. Start looking in south america, china, and europe and you will see a difference.

#

Don't you see? To Americans, America *is* the rest of the world.

#

>>>This is why Linux will never be accepted: It's users can get past their Messiah complex.

Same reason the Heliocentric idea of the Solar System never got accepted over the Ptolemian version -- Galileo was just too darn political!

Never mind the truth...

#

If you are somehow implying that this "article" has any truth to it, you need to be spanked.

#

No, I'm afraid you're the one whose implications are ridiculous. You have given no evidence. Do so and we may take you seriously.

#

IF the GPL protects software howcome NVIDIA get away with only releasing binary only drivers.

See, its not so simple...

#

you are an ignorant idiot. go and play in your sandbox

#

Because nVidia's driver code is not based on any GNU GPL (or similiar license) code.

#

but what if it's loaded by the Linux kernel? Linus himself said he thought drivers had to be open source.

#

Being loaded by the kernel is different from being *part of* the kernel. It's perfectly fine to have GPL'd software interacting with proprietary software. You just can't incorporate proprietary code into a GPL'd program, or put GPL'd code in a proprietary program. You would be violating either of the licenses.

I hope I'm understanding your question right...

#

Actually, your understanding is not so right. The nvidia driver is not a stand-alone code that can run just like that it is developed in conjunction with the kernel source and uses kernel functions. Its a borderline issue and a topic of hot debate.

#

It's not a hot topic any more. Linus told RMS
to shove the GPL where it don't shine. It's
been that way for years and nobody is doing
anything about it. GPL is being abused all
over the place it just that the corporations
who profit from GNU's GPL do not want to invest
in big legal protection costs. Sure a few
little guys get dinged every once in a while
but the real problem is GNU's GPL dosn't have
enough paid lawyers behind it. Too many holes
in the current GPL. And even if you did rewrite
the license to become more restrictive you
still have to have more money to go after your
own base?

#

May I suggest you do a little bit of reading in the Linux kernel top level directories? There's some interresting material on the issue of modules an licensing that a man of your genious should absorp.

#

Simple. nVidia has released a GPL-compatible bit of stub code which their proprietary driver code uses to communicate with the kernel. The proprietary code has no knowledge of the inner workings of the kernel, only of their interface layer, which is also licensed such that the proprietary code can be linked to it. Essentially, they've managed to create a loosely-coupled kernel module, which is rather more difficult to manage that I've just made it sound.

#

have you ever thought about the possibility, that some people chose such licenses because they _want_ to get there code to be useful everywhere or they don't care if someone uses it "non-freely", because the original is still free?

maybe you've not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Ya. And what happens to those people who want others to take their stuff and give something in return ? BSD license is useless for them. Thanks to GPL, they have a choice now. And as it stands, the GPL is far more popular today.

#

You have no moral right demanding others to offer returns from receiving your gift. It only makes your gift a sham, a trap, and disingenuous/ignoble. As you said, thanks to the GPL.

#

Advertisers in a proprietary world have no morals
when they claim you can get a "free gift". And
GPL companies are the free as in gift as long
as you refuse to pay the source of their support.
After all RMS did think this out you didn't expect
that you needed a community that delivers free
with quality defeating it's life blood.
You get what you pay for.

#

1. It's not a gift, it's a trade. If it was intended to be a gift, it would have been released to the Public Domain not protected under the GPL. Instead, you are required to release your improvements to the base work as the price of base work. If you don't want to abide by the conditions, find a product to improve or use that was released under the BSD (or other non-copyleft) license or has been release to the Public Domain.

2. Why are you so upset over the existence of the GPL andf software relased under it?

#

"Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft."

Then I guess it wasn't stolen, or theft if it was legal was it. You Linonuts wonder why you have no credibility.

------

"the bumblebee who could fly, the impossible notion that a bunch of kids on the Internet could create the most successful operating system in history come true. All of that has happened at least partly because of the GPL."

How is Linux the emost successful? Install base, revenue, number of people living in their parent's basements running it? What measure are you usinging.

------
"But Linux is immune to most of the kneecap-busting, air-supply cutting, baby-knifing techniques that Microsoft is so fond of."

Lending more credibility to the communtity.

------

There is nothing wrong with the gpl, but like lawyers with 99% giving the other 1% a bad name, the same thing happens in the Linux community. I for one enjoy free software and host a website on it. It's great not having to pay money, to be able to change things as I see fit, and offer the changes back. I use Linux, but I'm not proud of it's wingnut supporters.

#

""Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft."

Then I guess it wasn't stolen, or theft if it was legal was it. You Linonuts wonder why you have no credibility."

As I pointed out over on "/.", if IP can't be "stolen"?* Then how can BSD (or any other noncopyleft license) code be "stolen?

*See the arguments used everytime copyright comes up over their.

#

If you read the gnu.org site. IP is not an allowable expression. It is undefined as in null. So as you pointed out the "/."ers are refering to the value of null. As long as as it not translated into patent terms.

The beauty of GPL and Linux is you can write IP
free code and let the end commercial companies pay the price for commercial distributions of Linux related to IP contention. As a GPL developer you
are truly free of business ethics related to IP.

#

Lying about free licenses like BSD, MIT and ISC doesn't make the GPL any better. No BSD licensed software has been stolen by MS, they don't use a BSD TCP/IP stack anyways, and when they do use BSD code (unix services for windows for example) its perfectly legit, and encouraged by the authors of the software. So quit lying and spreading FUD like you always accuse MS of doing.

#

"So quit lying and spreading FUD like you always accuse MS of doing. "

I have a better question. Why do they engage in such behaviour in the first place? Is non-copyleft licenses the MS to their GPL? Might non-GPL be an example of fighting fire with fire? And yet the irony of a lot of OSS supporters (including Linus) liking and using Mac OS X is lost upon them.

#

I have an even better question? Why is it that GPL has spread so far and wide? Why is it so morally reprehensible if I something-for-something ? The Gates/BSD-buts/winblows-lusers etc. just cant' learn to appreciate that in life there needs to be a balance between give and take. No license (GPL or BSD or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..) will suit all. But the GPL has what no other OSS license has.

#

"Why is it that GPL has spread so far and wide? "

And a guess is all you will ever have to that question. Far and wide, you guess.

"Why is it so morally reprehensible if I something-for-something ? "

???

"The Gates/BSD-buts/winblows-lusers etc. just cant' learn to appreciate that in life there needs to be a balance between give and take."

Oh lovely. "If you're not my friend, then you must be my enemy" argument. Your debating skills suck.

"No license (GPL or BSD or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..) will suit all. But the GPL has what no other OSS license has. "

Whiney, arrogant, follow the leader, intolerant, stallman fanboys.

#

And BSD has "Whiney, arrogant, follow the leader, intolerant, fanboys."

Same minus stallman.

#

Well, I'll say that I think the GPL is a fine license. I think that for many types of applications, it is the best license.

But the BSD licenses are also pretty darn good as well. And I don't see the need for perpetual FUD regarding them.

#

You are a moron yes its true, the GPL sucks just like you. Is it the license, no its the case of people cheering for the little dog. jesus christ people, this is software not a religon. I have now peged You people like I do the Mac zealots. Idiots who just want something to cheer because they have nothing else in there measley life that holds any meaning. The ones who need a cause to believe in so bad they will waste their time demonizing someone else to get ahead and writing idiotic articles like this. I use Windows Servers and Clients I love em, and if Microsoft was to stop making products tomorrow, I wouldnt even consider using linux.

Religous Idiots

#

wow, getting flamed by a nearly-literate troll almost hurts.

#

software not a religon.

You must be from the dark ages. I couldn't care less what religion you follow but software is affecting lives more and more and it already is a rights issue for millions of researchers and scientists and engineers and average users who develop and/or sell and/or use software. Wake up and get out of the cave.

#

You really don't expect these zealot's to understand what you are saying do you?

#

The people who write GPL based software love what they are doing. The bugs found by the community are reported back to the developers who Fix them brcause they enjoy what they do. Bug fixes are the #1 reason I love GPL software.

#

The Mickeysoft FUD and anti-GPL machine seems to be running at full speed. Do they get paid by the word, or by the hour?

#

By the grammatical error, evidently.

#

I'm hearing more and more lately about the importance of free software to our freedom. This is, in my opinion, so important that it can not be over-emphasized or repeated too often. This is an eloquent and moving piece about the freedom part of free software. Keep it coming!

#

There's nothing wrong with freedom. But make certain you have <A HREF="http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/" title="softpanorama.org">all sides</a softpanorama.org> first.

#

Awesome website. I like how the writer tries to keep a straight face saying that conformism will destroy us, yet Microsoft will save us. If 95% of people use Windows, does that not sound a little conformist? That site gave me the biggest laugh I had all week.

#

1. Step one, write article and post on own web site
2. Have editor of web site post on slashdot and drive traffic to it.
3. Profit?

(Finding it hilarious that anyone can take anything on a news site with the word "forge" in its name...)

But license trolling is just too easy. I mean really. (Next week, Ode to the MPL v. 1.0

#

Joe, this is an excellent article and deserves to be as widely read as possible.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

#

this is a great article and really hits the heart of the linux vs microsoft.

linux is ready for the desktop and microsoft knows it. so what do they try to do - make it illegal - this is their last resort against linux -

gpl also what makes software live on indefinitely. what happens when a company goes bankrupt and closes down - well their software goes with them. if it was gpl it would live on and just wait for someone to pick it up and maintain it. that is the beauty of it - it won't hold you company hostage to another company.

#

Canopy group and recently deposed chairman Ralph Yarro are <A HREF="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2543579" title="sltrib.com">suing each other</a sltrib.com> in Utah District Court. Yarro is seeking reinstatement as chairman; he claims that Ray Noorda's vote to remove him was bogus and prompted by his family, as Noorda is apparently mentally incapacitated.

#

I love the GPL because I'm "different". So like everybody else who is "different" I hate MS. Okay, that make me the same as every other loser who thinks he is different but hey I'm a loser so I don't know any better.

Also I think programmers should write for free because my job at McDonalds can't pay for crap. Not to mention it's all about freedom and giving to the community. You see the programmers will spend countless hours writing software and I will bash MS and give other peoples work away. Hey, it's all for the good of the community, right?

So really I love the GPL because it gives me software for free and I can be "different" and bash MS like everybody else who is "different". Which really makes me the same as everybody else who is "different". Which just makes me a loser.....

#

If the FSF would really intend the GPL to be used
only to grant source availability, it would be sufficient
to require that (when mixing code that
is under different licenses) the other code is
under a OSI aproved license and that the source
of the combined work is required to be
published. There is no need to require putting all
code from the combined work under the GPL.

The GPL instead runs a embrace and extend approach.

The GPL does not support cooperation of developers
that use different licenses for their code. The
GPL likes to pull everything towards the FSF camp.

I therefore call the GPL a second class Open Source license, see my blog at

<A HREF="http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/01/do-we-need-different-levels-of-osi.html" title="blogspot.com">http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/01/do-we-need-dif<nobr>f<wbr></nobr> erent-levels-of-osi.html</a blogspot.com>

to understand why....

#

It's really good to hear somebody to really think about that license FUD which is spread by those ignorant and religous GPL fanatics. They really should think about what GPL means and what difference the LGPL gives to developers instead to somebody who wants to implement his own code into an application that isn't legally compatible with his open sourced code.

  The open source community or even better the companies who want to open source their code should negotiate what license they want to use and they should standardize licensing policies together to make sure that licenses are compatible to each other. The work of the OSI is just a first step...

Nevertheless your work on cdrecord is very important for all of us. Thank you.

#

Schilly - I have got news for you:

1) nobody cares about your blog (see the number of comments on your rant) and posting a link to it here will only *decrease* any possible interest.
2) the GPL is here to stay no matter how much this can chagrine those who wish it did not exist. if it is not compatible with EU law - try a lawsuit and make SCO's case even more hilarious
3) what is plainly obvious is that you want to get your hands on GPLed code and are frustrated by the license's terms for use. tough luck. GPLed code was not developed to help you - but to help those who help other.

#

How about starting to help others like I already
do for a long time instead of oozing your your
incorrect rants?

It looks like you yourself do not believe
your own rants and are just unhappy after you
see people pointing to the problems of the GPL.
In case you don't know it: even the FSF is
considering to create a GPL-3 soon, because of
the obvious problems in the GPL-2.

I believe it makes sense to give an advice on
what could be made better....

Let me again point you to the difference between
me any you: I don't hide my identity behind an
anonymous posting and I am very active with
contributing Free/Open Source software.

#

giving advice is good. alleging "imperial" motives for the FSF is quite different. don't pretend to want to help after writing The
GPL likes to pull everything towards the FSF camp

as for comparing your and my contribution to free software (I don't care about the term "open source"), well, it adds *nothing* to the content of our posts. this is just a way of shifting focus. second, this is an immature game of "my dick is bigger than yours". lastly, since I am, indeed, posting anonymously, you have no idea of my contribution, or lack thereof, to anything.it just goes to show irritated you are at my post.

#

3) what is plainly obvious is that you want to get your hands on CDDLed code and are frustrated by the license's terms for use. tough luck. CDDLed code was not developed to help you - but to help those who help other.

#

I did not jet mention CDDL, but if you check
you would find that the CDDL is a first class
OSI compliant license while the GPL is only
a second class OSI compliant license.

#

I did not jet mention CDDL, but if you check
you would find that the CDDL is a first class
OSI compliant license while the GPL is only
a second class OSI compliant license.

Not according to the OSI.

#

"The second step would be to change the incompatible licenses. If e.g. the GPL would not require the whole project to be put under the GPL but just require that the whole project must not use code that is not under a OSI compliant license, the primary intention of the GPL would not be given up but the GPL would become compatible to most other OSI licenses."

My answer to your question is to leave it as is. Why bother wasting time drawing licensing compatibility charts? The fundamental concept of freedom is to be restriction free. There is no need for this: "but just require that the whole project must not use code that is not under a OSI compliant license." Individual projects/authors already have the freedom to choose - whether to incorporate GPL code, or to use the GPL for licensing. If they want to be restrictive and incompatible with other licenses, let them because it's their freedom to be restrictive and incompatible.

If people can't understand the GPL legalese, there's always the simple and easy to read BSD license.

#

"It's the little guy standing up to the corporate behemoths that run rough-shod over our daily lives by virtue of their influence, legal and otherwise, on government."

You are closing your eyes and ears from the MPAA and the RIAA, entertainment cartels. They are exploiting the GPL, such as keeping their ported code to Themselves. There's nothing "legal theft" about that, nor are they "real software pirates" though.

https://renderman.pixar.com/products/pricelists/
index.htm

"Use of the Software is governed by the End User License Agreement, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement")."
http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/terms.html

"Microsoft, for example, took the BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack from the public and swallowed it up in its proprietary product line. Then sold back to the public what it had taken from them. Legally, of course. The BSD-style license offers no protection against that sort of thing."

After Microsoft did this, the same BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack suddenly vanished from CVS and from all backup systems; thereby, only Microsoft has it. The GPL offers this protection to "corporate behemoths", such as Hollywood, who prefer to keep their GPL derivatives private.

"They've [Microsoft] done the same thing with Kerberos, except worse. They made their version of Kerberos work fully only with their servers. Public pressure forced them to provide documentation for their closed-fisted proprietary pirated version, but they attached a restrictive license to the documentation which made it impossible for it to be used in free software."

It's their derived work and the license allows them to do so. Don't get pissed off because you can't access other people's derived work. If you expect returns for your "generous" gift, your generosity is nothing but a con to get others to give you free lunches.

"Could it be the license? For many, yes. The GPL is often described as idealistic and altruistic. If the kernel developers were interested only in the code, wouldn't the BSDs be the ones with the huge development corps instead of Linux? That's what we're told all the time by the BSD-bigots, it's better technically."

You are the "BSD-bigots" here. BSDs strive for technical correctness and perfection (if attainable). The market doesn't always adopt superior products over inferior ones - *ix over Windows. The excerpt below is one reason why IBM chose GPL or GNU/Linux instead of BSD.

RMS:
"...IBM says let's see. Let's look at your product. Hmmm. I've got this patent and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one, which parts of your product infringe. If you think you can fight against all of them in court, I will just go back and find some more. So, why don't you cross license with me?" And then this brilliant small inventor says "Well, OK, I'll cross license". So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever it is, but so can IBM. IBM gets access to his patent and gets the right to compete with him, which means that this patent didn't "protect" him at all. The patent system doesn't really do that."
http://swpat.ffii.org/papri/rms-cam020325/
index.en.html

The GPL allows exactly this, whereby it basically "forces" other software companies and non GPL projects (proprietary or CDDL types) to grant IBM free access.

"The GPL's sibling license, the GNU Lesser GPL, with nearly a 6% share. Coming in third, with 3.57%, is the original BSD license. The GPL is not just the most popular open source or free software license, it is overwhelmingly the people's choice."

This is why Microsoft posted another record Quarter with about $10000000000 in sales. By your example of popularity, your GPL movement shouldn't be taken seriously either.

"Linux is not a company or an individual that can be bought," except IBM already compensated GNU/Linux with free ads and opening their 500 patents out of 40000.

"It's perfectly OK to like the GPL and to dislike Stallman. They are two different things."

It's OK to like the GPL and to disparage your founder. He's a thing similar to the GPL.

"The reason I love the GPL is because it has made one of the richest men in the world -- some would say that makes him one of the most powerful men in the world -- impotent against the surging growth of Linux and its user base."

The reason you love the GPL is because you're jealous you're not "one of the richest men in the world" nor "one of the most powerful men in the world," but you would like to be impotent with "surging growth of Linux and its user base" in the future?

Here's an example of a GPL luser "kneecap-busting, air-supply cutting, baby-knifing," and committing "legal theft" and "piracy" towards the BSD license, while the GPL community does nothing.

http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html

#

But BSD is designed to be stolen. It's the unpopular kid who gives the other kids presents to buy their friendship then wonders whey they still don't like it.

As for the GPL protecting the RIAA: which planet?

#

RenderMan isnt licensed under the GPL. RenderMan links to LGPL and LGPL was made so you can make priporitary software.

#

"Unfortunately, Apple Computer, which I believe had a great opportunity with OS X, also decided to take the path of trashing the GPL, while embracing the BSD license. Why? Same reason Microsoft did. Remember that Apple, who had the lion's share of the market back in the Apple ][ days, was arrogant, arrogant, arrogant (they still are, BTW). It was Apple who was the one most eager to sue people for anything that they felt they could get away with."

Embrasing the BSD license? Thats why not 1 open source project Apple sponsors is released under the BSD license, but the Apple Public Source License which they collaborated on with Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens. Wow if it wasn't that this was a Linux article I'd swear you were a Windoze user spreading Apple FUD, but it's FUD none the less.

#

The bottom line

The reason I love the GPL is because it has made one of the richest men in the world -- some would say that makes him one of the most powerful men in the world -- impotent

I HaTe M$, biLLg c@n g0 sUck @n eGG! lInuX r0x!!!oneoneone

#

I have a load of bills to pay each month. Rent, loans, insurance and so on. Thank you GNU GPL for giving me the right to choose to distribute software for a fee!

#

Or may be it is just chosen so often, because it's the default in the sourceforge project registration forms; and many people just don't spend a second thought on it (which you often also realize by looking at the general/core application design). That's also why so many libraries are GPLed and not LGPL and Linux now in some areas hangs behind Windows and even good ol' DOS.

#

Can you actually name an area where linux hangs behind DOS, or are you just blowing smoke?

#

Mouse support in the console (blame GPM). Non-ugly text editors in the console (blame ncurses).

We don't have nearly as much cool text applications as there existed for DOS. Admittedly it's mostly because of unoptimized Distributions and dumb defaults in the vanilla kernel; but the GNU GPL contributed here too.

Many of those, that once wrote cool DOS apps, don't feel all too fine to port them. And I doubt it is because for source code protection, but more because some libraries try to force them a license on (viral GPL clause). It's the lack of LGPL libraries that sets<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Linux back.

#

It has constantly fascinated me that the Rich Guys of the world can wax eloquently about freedom and especially "free markets" and "free market economies," but they whine and wail about free software. Free markets to Bill G. and Steve B. are only good if it means that Bill and Steve are free to do anything their monopoly allows them to get away with. Free markets to them mean freedom from restraints on their behavior regardless of business ethics and laws.

The GPL is wonderful because it restores freedom to the marketplace for software. If GPL licensed software fails to gain share, so be it. If it does gain share it won't because Bill and Steve fought fair and square in the marketplace of ideas.

Don

#

I agree. Some people only want freedoms for themselves. It almost seems that they only really want what profits their own pockets, rather than what is really best for others. Mind you, many of those individuals do have very good ideas and have profited immensely from them. I have nothing at all against that part. My only objection is the manner in which some of them, Ballmer and Gates in particular, try to take out anything that even comes close to threatening their complete domination. Competition is fine; taking others out is not.

#

Hey, I'm a programmer. Recently I decided to re-write and release some of my older programs with the source code. I choose the GPL.

Now the main program I am releasing this way is not anything anyone would use commerically, in fact is has very limited application - only certain specialists would use it. I am releasing it as an educational tool.

And the GPL is a great license for this sort of release. I can be sure that it will remain an open educational tool, and those who learn from it can be sure that it will remain an open educational tool.

I've released things into the public domain in the past, and have one project that I'm considering releaseing under a BSD style license.

The point is to make the license suit the software, an not the other way around.

#

This is BS. The only thing we wouldnt have if rms was not involved is a GPL-license. We would have a bsd licensed linux - imagine the cool stuff that companies could create with that - and the fact we could all do anything with no restrictions!!!!

There should be a new license created - one where anyone can use the product in ANY way they want but only if they perform one task per year for the project. This way, you get the best of both worlds - a project moving forward, and true do-with-it-as-you-please-with-no-bloody-restricti<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> ns-freedom for lack of a better word.

GPL is viral. GPL does inhibit good people making a few dollars off their code (commercial software dev not custom software dev). It causes more people to use GPL software and to make people make their licenses compatible with GPL. It infects others mindshare and causes a change in software licensing and distribution.

Another thing it does is lower the bar for entry into the market. A lot of US developers create tools to allow lesser programmers to create the same programs as them. Then the lesser programmers charge 50x less and the developers dont understand why they lose their jobs... simple economics - open source is commoditizing software simply by lowering the barriers to entry.

If this is freedom show me the door.

#

Yeah... competition sucks. We need governments and licenses to prop up companies and save them from competition. That way freedom would be protected. Companies and developers wouldn't have to struggle to make a good product, people would be pleased and should be thankful for anything they got. Companies and developers shouldn't have to make the best product possible to make money, they should be able to sell product that is mediocre so that they can have a good upgrade path.

#

"Yeah... competition sucks. "

So are you making the argument that all competition is good? If so, then there should be less complaining as your IT job heads overseas.*

*Of course all those "outsourcing" stories on Slashdot would be much thinner if you all weren't a bunch of hypocrites.

#

Wow... I didn't think we'd bring out the monopoly loving nutcases so quickly. Read 1984.. and get a tattoo of Bush on your forehead.

Of course, the problem is that offshoring competition would be fine if the trade was fair.

Microsoft has never been a fair competitor, and the gpl will someday bring Microsoft to fair competition whether it likes it or not.

#

Get a grip! Use the license that best suits your needs and get over this fanatical "My preference is best!" BS.

#

This article did an excellent job of cutting through some serious mumbo jumbo. However, it raised a somewhat less serious issue for me: why can't computer people count like normal people?

Anyone who ever watched Sesame Street knows that if you count something, you start with one (as in 1 Freedom, 2 Freedoms, 3 Freedoms, 4 Freedoms, Ha ha haaaa!).

More than anything else, this may explain why Linux hasn't achieved more penetration in the desktop arena....

#

you just made a fool of yourself but you obviously don't know why!

#

Semi-seriously, not everything needs to be counted like one is building a release. That is simply nerdy as hell.

Look at the Bill of Rights, you don't see .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..

Amendment 0: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Which leads back to the more serious debate. I don't see anything in the open source movement other
than people exercising:
1) Free Speech
2) Free Press
3) Freedom to Assemble
- and for the super insanely serious -
4) Freedom of Religion

I don't really see anything "communistic" in that. Do what you want. Code on...

#

I don't really see anything "communistic" in that.

Do you even know what communism is?

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed


 

#

That was a very fun and intersting read, though nothing all that new or anything that I haven't read in the past. Thank you.

There has always been one thing that I have wondered about with GPL style software. Where will GPLed software be in 20 years?

The GPL is in a way viral in that what you develop on top of that code must also be GPL. So over time I have watched projects start and stop, be taken up again and mature, from linux to gimp to gnome. In 20 years I expect these projects to be even more advanced as they feed off of each other.

The downside to this for people that develop for something other then the GPL is that the bar keeps rising for both those that want to enter into the field and those already in the field.

Where will this take GPLed sofware in 20 years? Basicly everywhere. It will simply grow to fill more markets as it can't help but do so.

Some of the practical downsides to the growth of GPLed software:

Government funded research. I know where this has effected scientific projects. Many of them start out their projects 'on' GPLed code and in the end must release their code work under the GPL and not public domain. Companies cry fowl but it is becoming more common as reprodusing past GPLed work from scratch would take exponentially more time to get a 'clean' implamentation of a project that would be possible to release to the public domain. In the end the cost of developing non-GPLed software rules out developing it through govenment research projects.

Shareware: In the past shareware has been a hot and neat idea but I can see that over time GPLed software compleatly takes over the shareware universe. Most of the programs were small and quick and were made to solve one problem. It still exists in the Windows and Mac worlds, but is very rare indeed on the linux side of things. Shareware has, almost by definition, a very small development staff. So creating similar GPLed software is relitivly easy. This tends to only happen with the most useful shareware programs though.

Lost works: Good software has been made by many a company only to be lost to time because of its closed nature. Relegated to a dusty shelf never to be looked at again. The GPL actually contributes to this lost work by simply growing. I consider the lost of all that past work to be sad.

#

Some interesting points you raise.

Re lost proprietory works. I don't think GPL makes any difference here. The main reason 'good' proprietory software is lost is because the company (big or small) no longer releases it. Because of copyright, no-one else is allowed to release it. Because the source code is closed, no-one can imitate it without building it from scratch. I can't see how the GPL contributes to this in any way.

Incidently, these 'lost works' are part of the reason that people are able to argue that "There is so much crap Open Source software, but all Proprietory software is good". It's because Open Source software remains visible (including the crap), whereas crap proprietory software disappears into a black hole - along with a lot of good proprietory software. Hence the amount of crap Open Source software keeps growing. (I know - one man's crap is another man's gem)

The other point is about the 'bar keeps rising for both those that want to enter into the field and those already in the field.' This is true to an extent, but is that not also true with proprietory software? Open Source keeps trying to chase MicroSoft, which is continually raising the bar. And no-one accuses MicroSoft of being Open Source. On the other hand, if I want to release a cut-back piece of software under Open Source, there is nothing to stop me. The bar for entry is pretty much zero. Maybe I won't get millions of people using my software - but why should they if a better product already exists anyway? I think the continually raising bar is simply a function of technological (ie software) progress on the one hand, and marketing from big proprietory players on the other. Not really anything to do with proprietory or GPL.

I think your observation about GPL software spreading at the expense of other licences is probably correct unless something happens to make it all un-usable or incompatible. However, in 20 years time, the original copyright starts to expire. That makes the original GPL no longer enforceable. Suddenly, that (very old) software comes into the public domain and new code can be forked from it with no restrictions at all. So GPL is not forever, even if it is viral.

#

You have made a few factual mistakes in your response. Copyright lasts for 90 years in the US. Hense Dounald Duck is still under copyright... as well as Gone with the Wind. Software is covered by the same set of laws. There isn't 'any' GPLed code that has 'gone' out of copyright unless it was intentionally put into the public domain. Patents on the other paw do last only 20 years.

Crap Software... Ah... it sounds like your looking at it from a 'user' perspective of crap software. I was talking about the code for software... cause beleive it or not there is a lot of intersting 'code' out there that is part of crap software.

Raising the bar: You said it yourself... you can as a single person start your own project and even if you only get two users... you and your friend... it would still be a succseeful project when dealing with GNU software. Oh the other paw if you were trying ot make money off of it.... you would fold inside the first year unless you could sell a copy of it for a million. (Yes... there are companies out there that sell only three copys of their software a year... but its really expensive.) Hense having GNU sofware nipping at the bar or even making it higher makes it very hard for a new company to enter the market.

Microsoft: The idea that open sourse is always trying to 'emulate' microsoft is a fallacy of a massive sort and I take it that you have been reading microsoft FUD to get that impression. Many of the best technical innovations out there started out on UNIX and start out on Linux nowdays. The first OS to run on AMDs 64bit CPU was linux. In fact... as of yet Microsoft still hasn't released a retail ver of their software that will run on 64bits. Years after that CPU was introduced.

So I would say that for technical innovation to technical innovation Linux has been doing very well. Better memmory managment, better file systems, better clustering, and with all the new tech that IBM has been putting into linux it has surpassed anything microsoft has ever done. (Many of the techs that IBM put in there are covered by patents.)

THe only following I have seen with linux compaired to microsoft is trying to work out some secret API so that you can get hardware that is 'windows' only to work with linux. AKA winmodems, fucked up open standered... ect.

Anyway..

#