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

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Jackson <jj [at] scs.leeds.ac.uk> writes:

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

    >> Wooohoo! a GPL vs. BSD flamefest!

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

OK, fine with me.  I already replied to Jim's post somewhat sharply;
that is a product of having dealt directly with rms on this issue.
I'm more sensitive to it than I should be, but rms is such a FUD
factory....

Like Jim, I'm mostly interested in people knowing what their options
are.

    >> ..... From what I have witnessed, the direct snarfing of code
    >> is very rare - I think MS did it with their IP stack for
    >> Win2000 - without feeding back code to the original source

NeXT and Objective C.  rms evidently had to write some very strong
lawyer letters there.

    >>  - It happens with FreeBSD where source changes
    >> from commercial entities are re-submitted for possible
    >> inclusion in later versions. The BSD style though not enforcing
    >> GPL openness doesn't preclude it, heck it's been open for many
    >> many years and it ain't dead yet :).

There was a thread on FSB[1] recently about this.  Basically, unless you
really want to go whole hog and support a full-blown kernel
development effort yourself, it apparently takes 1-3 years for a
proprietary derived BSD to become unmaintainable because of source
differences.  A couple of BSDs derived from open source BSDs are
apparently currently discussing contributing their whole kernel mods
back to the community because keeping step with the open versions has
become a full time job, and they hardly have time to maintain their
proprietary stuff, let alone improve it and develop new features.

    Jim> special proprietary module ????) the fact that the
    Jim> "community" raised the issue with the relevant people got it
    Jim> sorted PDQ - everyone seemed to act honestly to sort out what
    Jim> appeared to be misunderstanding/misinterpretation

This isn't what happened with Ghostscript/GNU readline.  I think
everyone was honest, but there is no "true understanding" of rms's
"dynamic linking is derivation" interpretation of the GPL.  That's for
a court to decide.  (Actually, legislatures could do it too, and I
expect that the European opinion may be different from American.)

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

Yes and no.  I think every time I've gotten involved in a new forum,
within a year someone's asked that question.  I've been joining and
taking leave of absence and wandering around in the net community for
18 years now, and all of those various communities seem to still be
going strong.

As Bob points out in another reply, "the net community" today has to
be considered to include the denizens of AOL chatrooms and "warez
d00dz" IRC channels.  That's OK, our community (free software or
hackers or open source) can exist side-by-side with those, within the
"net community", albeit with a slight renaming.  The honesty is a
marker of community membership, and (IMO) therefore by definition will
not go away.  Cf the Eric Raymond Trilogy (which like Douglas Adams's
seems to be growing a 4th and a 5th volume ;).

http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/, IIRC.


Footnotes: 
[1]  Short - license discussion that is not directly business-problem-
related gets "moderated" very quickly on the Free Software Business
ML, fsb@crynwr.com; to subscribe, fsb-subscribe [at] crynwr.com.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.