Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Why I love the GPL
By Joe Barr
on
January 29, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Commentary: There are a lot of good reasons to like the GPL: the GNU General Public License. For one thing, it's a David and Goliath kind of thing. 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. For another, it's virtuous. It's a Medicare Bill which actually provides more and better health care for the elderly rather than simply pouring public funds directly into the greedy, gaping gaws of the pharmaceutical industry. It's also territorial. It's "Don't Tread on Me" applied to software. The GPL provides a legal framework for an ever improving, ever free, software infrastructure.
In addition, it's what Linus chose for Linux in order that those who follow can have access to his creation. But what I love about the GPL is the same thing that Microsoft and other corporate predators hate about it: it works.
What does it protect?
As explained on the GNU/FSF website, the definition of "free software" encompasses four separate freedoms. None of these freedoms have to do with the price of beer. The four freedoms are:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
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.
How does it work?
The GPL makes those freedoms self-perpetuating by requiring that anyone who obtains and redistributes GPLd software to release it under the same terms. This is sometimes referred to in a pejorative sense as its "viral nature." Call it what you will, this feature is what provides the protection for the four freedoms. This is what provides Linus -- and thousands of other free software authors -- the protection they want for their software.
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.
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.
Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft. The MIT license covering Kerberos provided no protection against that sort of thing.
I love the GPL because it protects Linux and other great software from falling into the clutches of the real software pirates.
How well does it work?
The Linux kernel is the poster-boy for GPLd software. It's become the little OS who could, 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.
Linux thrives for several reasons, but chief among them them is its community of developers, a community unrivaled by any other platform. Are they drawn to Linux by a charismatic leader? Some, no doubt. To my way of thinking, Linus Torvalds' greatest genius is not in code, but in creating an environment where many gifted coders can work together for the common good. But don't forget, in his heart of hearts, Torvalds is a geek: a sub-species not noted for being warm and fuzzy people-persons.
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.
But they are not just interested in the code. The GPL adds a magic glue to the Linux community, the good feeling that comes from doing good for others, and knowing that it will continue to do that good for as long as it is used. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then you are probably never going to "get it" as far as the GPL, or Linux, is concerned.
The GPL covers a whole lot more than just the Linux kernel. Check the statistics. Freshmeat.net lists almost 36,000 projects covered by more than 50 different licenses. The page showing percentage covered by specific license reveals over 68% of those projects are licensed by the GPL. What's in second place? 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.
Why the lies about the GPL?
Gates and Ballmer attack the GPL at every opportunity. It's not unusual to hear them break out in that old familiar fascist soft-shoe routine and refer to it or Linux as communistic. Hey, who can blame those two bozos. They stumbled blindly into a pot of gold when they were given a monopoly on what turned out to be -- largely no thanks to them -- the hottest technology of the century. Now their lives are dedicated to protecting that monopoly from all comers.
They've done pretty well at that, too. Sometimes they've won anti-trust battles in court, sometimes they've won them in back room deals with secretive administrations. But several superior technical solutions have come and gone -- DR DOS and OS/2, for example -- without making much of a dent in the Microsoft monopoly.
But Linux is immune to most of the kneecap-busting, air-supply cutting, baby-knifing techniques that Microsoft is so fond of. Linux is not a company or an individual that can be bought. It's a community made up largely of folks who find the Microsoft mindset disgusting. Geeks like things that work, and despise the hollow-men who make hollow claims about performance, security, robustness, and availability. And -- unlike the TCP/IP stack and Kerberos -- it's protected by the GPL.
You know those bogus and misleading ads that Microsoft calls its "Get the facts" campaign, and loves to run here and on other popular Linux sites? That's not only what Microsoft does best, it's about the best it can do in its campaign against Linux. And judging from the feedback reactions I've seen to them in comments, they aren't winning any converts for them.
Stallman as a substitute target
The GPL is a license for software. Words. Statements. Clauses. A legal document. Richard Stallman is a man. Brilliant, opinionated, and uncompromising. Many attacks on the GPL are made indirectly, by going after Richard Stallman, for no other reason than he is vulnerable to them, while the license itself is not.
If you don't disassociate the two, then the GPL is going to rise and fall in your estimation based on how you're well getting along with Stallman at the moment. Remember, we're talking about a man who can polarize a room into warring factions just by walking by. I admire Stallman greatly, but I don't always agree with him. It's perfectly OK to like the GPL and to dislike Stallman. They are two different things.
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 against the surging growth of Linux and its user base.
And because Linux and other free software exists, I have been able to free myself from the noxious terms and conditions imposed by the monopoly on their customers. Changing their licensing terms on the fly, for example. And doing so in ways which forces meek compliance, since failure to accept them means you don't get the latest service pack, which contains fixes for dozens of gaping security holes, which are known and constantly probed for every minute of every day.
The monopoly hates the escape route the GPL provides me. That's why they constantly attack it. Those attacks will undoubtably continue. Some will be legal challenges, some will merely be insane. Sometimes the hand of Microsoft will be obvious -- as in its financial backing and support of SCO -- sometimes not. But it doesn't matter. The GPL is winning. And for that I love it all the more.
Comments
on Why I love the GPLNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
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'.
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!
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?!
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 ?
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!
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
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.
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>:-)
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
mac mini runs linux fine (Re:You said it, brother)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 30, 2005 10:10 AM
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please forgive me if I don't get around to reading the rest of the article.
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.
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.
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). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But without the GPL those would be nothing.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 31, 2005 06:09 AM
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.
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.
Re:But without the GPL those would be nothing.
Posted by: kirkjobsluder on January 31, 2005 08:39 AM
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.
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.
But without the GPL [military] would be nothing.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 31, 2005 01:30 PM
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right on.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 29, 2005 06:06 PM#