FSF approved BSD
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
A bit of day dreaming here.... this is likely way beyond my skill level
but here goes....
I didn't see a BSD distro on the FSF list. Trisquel has the libre-linux
kernel and has removed non-free apps from the repository. Is there
anything else that needed to be done?
Does the BSD kernel have non-free software? If not then it would just be
a case of filtering the port system, no?
Thanks for reading-Patrick
I believe the problem with BSD is that it doesn't use a GPL-compatible
license, which means it allows malicious enterprises to use the code to
steal freedom away from you. The problem with FSF approval is not only the
absence of proprietary code, but the will to use the law to garantee
freedom by licensing it with GPL. In other words, that means they can't
condone the use and development of a kernel that will ultimately be used in
an evil way, while Linux by using a GPL license is protected from this
danger, therefore all recommended operating systems are GNU/Linux-based.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Patrick <name at domain>wrote:
> A bit of day dreaming here.... this is likely way beyond my skill level
> but here goes....
>
> I didn't see a BSD distro on the FSF list. Trisquel has the libre-linux
> kernel and has removed non-free apps from the repository. Is there anything
> else that needed to be done?
>
> Does the BSD kernel have non-free software? If not then it would just be a
> case of filtering the port system, no?
>
> Thanks for reading-Patrick
>
Thanks Fabio
I like GPL too.
BSD is very permissive, can the same code be re-licensed as GPL? I can't
see why not if you can just take the code and hide it in commercial
products.
I don't know very much about this but I have read that the BSD kernel is
cleaner then Linux and the ports system seems nice.
If it could be GPL'd what about Trisquel BSD? !
Thanks again
On 12-02-16 03:58 PM, Fabio Burlá wrote:
> I believe the problem with BSD is that it doesn't use a GPL-compatible
> license, which means it allows malicious enterprises to use the code
> to steal freedom away from you. The problem with FSF approval is not
> only the absence of proprietary code, but the will to use the law to
> garantee freedom by licensing it with GPL. In other words, that means
> they can't condone the use and development of a kernel that will
> ultimately be used in an evil way, while Linux by using a GPL license
> is protected from this danger, therefore all recommended operating
> systems are GNU/Linux-based
El 16/02/12 16:03, Patrick escribió:
> [...]
> BSD is very permissive, can the same code be re-licensed as GPL? I
> can't see why not if you can just take the code and hide it in
> commercial products.
>
> I don't know very much about this but I have read that the BSD kernel
> is cleaner then Linux and the ports system seems nice.
>
The code from BSD (if it uses the modified BSD license also called the 3
clause BSD license) could be relicensed GPL v3 if wanted.
> If it could be GPL'd what about Trisquel BSD? !
I don't think that Trisquel would be interested in such thing because it
would be a totally different project. Nevertheless, it would be another
free distro project that would cause two things: divide the effort and
diversify options for freedom fighters. One is good the other is bad.
You can always do what you consider best. I will cheer you and help if I
can.
Greetings,
Quiliro
This is the link to the Modified BSD license description
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD
I agree. Making a BSD fork would require a lot of effort, because it would
have to be developed separately from BSD, or it would be just a matter of
relicensing each version they make, what would be essentially the same as
helping BSD development.
Also, BSD universe is not as ready for desktops as GNU/Linux is, despite
the fact that a lot of things are ported from GNU/Linux environments. As a
kernel, it might be better than Linux in most aspects, but it lacks the
tools and everything derived from the GNU world, which means things must be
ported. I hear some work has been done in that aspect, but the problems we
already have like the lack of free drivers will be much worse in a system
that is less popular than GNU/Linux.
Personally, I believe that if Linux ever gets dropped by a FLOSS distro, it
will support not only a GPLed kernel, but a kernel from GNU, like Hurd. But
most people don't believe it will ever become a good kernel and I don't see
any other alternative in the horizon.
I am pretty disturbed by the fact that Linux kernel development does not
embrace true freedom and that some fighters out there have to clean it from
proprietary code. If Linux complied with "FLOSS standards" by being libre
in its nature, it would leave the distros to make the choice of including
or not the proprietary blobs. I might be ignorant for not knowing a
plausible explanation for this, but I believe it wouldn't be hard to
release the blobs separately from the kernel, so that things like
Linux-libre didn't need to exist. That leaves me with the impression that
Linus don't care about freedom and believes that open source is enough.
It's an horrible fact that we don't have a kernel that truly represent our
cause.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Quiliro Ordóñez
<name at domain>wrote:
> El 16/02/12 16:03, Patrick escribió:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> BSD is very permissive, can the same code be re-licensed as GPL? I can't
>> see why not if you can just take the code and hide it in commercial
>> products.
>>
>> I don't know very much about this but I have read that the BSD kernel is
>> cleaner then Linux and the ports system seems nice.
>>
>>
> The code from BSD (if it uses the modified BSD license also called the 3
> clause BSD license) could be relicensed GPL v3 if wanted.
>
>
> If it could be GPL'd what about Trisquel BSD? !
>>
>
> I don't think that Trisquel would be interested in such thing because it
> would be a totally different project. Nevertheless, it would be another
> free distro project that would cause two things: divide the effort and
> diversify options for freedom fighters. One is good the other is bad. You
> can always do what you consider best. I will cheer you and help if I can.
>
> Greetings,
> Quiliro
>
El 16/02/12 17:11, Fabio Burlá escribió:
> I agree. Making a BSD fork would require a lot of effort, because it
> would have to be developed separately from BSD, or it would be just a
> matter of relicensing each version they make, what would be
> essentially the same as helping BSD development.
>
It would not help them. They would have to use the modified parts with
the GNU GPL because they would not be able to relicense it as 3 clause
BSD.popular than GNU/Linux.
> [...]
> Personally, I believe that if Linux ever gets dropped by a FLOSS
> distro, it will support not only a GPLed kernel, but a kernel from
> GNU, like Hurd. But most people don't believe it will ever become a
> good kernel and I don't see any other alternative in the horizon.
>
What is needed? Many developers?
> I am pretty disturbed by the fact that Linux kernel development does
> not embrace true freedom and that some fighters out there have to
> clean it from proprietary code. If Linux complied with "FLOSS
> standards" by being libre in its nature, it would leave the distros to
> make the choice of including or not the proprietary blobs. I might be
> ignorant for not knowing a plausible explanation for this, but I
> believe it wouldn't be hard to release the blobs separately from the
> kernel, so that things like Linux-libre didn't need to exist.
The contributors release patches as each sees fit. It takes work to
incorporate changed patches. Linux does not want to delay changes for
freedom. It rather have power than give freedom to users.
> That leaves me with the impression that Linus don't care about freedom
> and believes that open source is enough.
>
That is exactly the case.
Hi Fabio, Hi Quiliro
I am in way over my head as I don't know much about this but I just
wanted to mention that I tried ghost BSD and although there were issues
with it(package manager crashing) it was very much like a gnome desktop
on GNU/Linux. For instance the installation gives the option to default
to a bash shell.
There is also a debian version that has a BSD kernel. If the BSD version
followed all the design decisions from the Trisquel GNU distro then
would that not lessen the development pain?
Thanks for feeding back
On 12-02-16 05:11 PM, Fabio Burlá wrote:
> I agree. Making a BSD fork would require a lot of effort, because it
> would have to be developed separately from BSD, or it would be just a
> matter of relicensing each version they make, what would be
> essentially the same as helping BSD development.
>
> Also, BSD universe is not as ready for desktops as GNU/Linux is,
> despite the fact that a lot of things are ported from GNU/Linux
> environments. As a kernel, it might be better than Linux in most
> aspects, but it lacks the tools and everything derived from the GNU
> world, which means things must be ported. I hear some work has been
> done in that aspect, but the problems we already have like the lack of
> free drivers will be much worse in a system that is less popular than
> GNU/Linux.
>
> Personally, I believe that if Linux ever gets dropped by a FLOSS
> distro, it will support not only a GPLed kernel, but a kernel from
> GNU, like Hurd. But most people don't believe it will ever become a
> good kernel and I don't see any other alternative in the horizon.
>
> I am pretty disturbed by the fact that Linux kernel development does
> not embrace true freedom and that some fighters out there have to
> clean it from proprietary code. If Linux complied with "FLOSS
> standards" by being libre in its nature, it would leave the distros to
> make the choice of including or not the proprietary blobs. I might be
> ignorant for not knowing a plausible explanation for this, but I
> believe it wouldn't be hard to release the blobs separately from the
> kernel, so that things like Linux-libre didn't need to exist. That
> leaves me with the impression that Linus don't care about freedom and
> believes that open source is enough.
>
> It's an horrible fact that we don't have a kernel that truly represent
> our cause.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Quiliro Ordóñez
> <name at domain name at domain>> wrote:
>
> El 16/02/12 16:03, Patrick escribió:
>
> [...]
>
> BSD is very permissive, can the same code be re-licensed as
> GPL? I can't see why not if you can just take the code and
> hide it in commercial products.
>
> I don't know very much about this but I have read that the BSD
> kernel is cleaner then Linux and the ports system seems nice.
>
>
> The code from BSD (if it uses the modified BSD license also called
> the 3 clause BSD license) could be relicensed GPL v3 if wanted.
>
>
> If it could be GPL'd what about Trisquel BSD? !
>
>
> I don't think that Trisquel would be interested in such thing
> because it would be a totally different project. Nevertheless, it
> would be another free distro project that would cause two things:
> divide the effort and diversify options for freedom fighters. One
> is good the other is bad. You can always do what you consider
> best. I will cheer you and help if I can.
>
> Greetings,
> Quiliro
>
>
I am a member!
We have looked at FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other BSD distributions in terms of chipset support. If you think Trisquel lacks support for hardware then BSD doesn't support anything at all.
:)
While some of our products do work with at least some BSD flavors a lot of it is only on the verge of working. Most of the hardware which does work is due to the free Linux drivers being ported. The problem is a lack of people to do the actual porting and that a lot of hardware isn't free software friendly. The stuff that really is freedom friendly should be portable in most cases.
GNU/Linux has a lot of commercial support on the desktop. If it wasn't for commercial companies like Redhat, IBM, Oracle (ok, lets be honest, Sun really did the funding, and Oracle did the killing) funding development GNU/Linux would not exist as we know it. Even Trisquel couldn't exist.
Most developers working on GNU/Linux are paid to do so. They are not volunteers. This is not an attack on those who do make contributions without payment. There are just so few people who are independently wealthy that they can afford to make significant contributions. While some critical parts and developers are paid for by non-profits the developers are still being paid. Then you have to ask who funds these non-profits? It is the same entities who are paying the developers to work on GNU/Linux. I think Trisquel is one of the few projects where this is not the case.
I think this is part of the problem free software faces. Those who are funding development aren't concerned about freedom. They aren't concerned about the desktop. The money going into desktop development is largely without a return on the investment.
If you look at the larger GNU/Linux ecosystem you will see there is a lot non-free software. From the Adobe Flash player to file formats. While Realplayer, Adobe, AMD and others have released specifications and source code for some of the the non-free GNU/Linux software most don't release everything. These are largely token efforts.
These companies don't really care about GNU/Linux or software freedom. They care about the money and being able to sell the products they create. Marketing gets to say things like 99% of systems support flash by releasing a GNU/Linux version. The non-free tools and services are where they make the money. It is probably why Microsoft worked with Novell. The truth behind the numbers is probably closer to 85% fully support XYZ and 15% don't despite these 99% claims.
ThinkPenguin.com is a minority in this sense. There really isn't any other commercial entity that I'm aware of which takes such a strong stance against non-free software (this is not to say we are perfect). Some companies producing commercial distributions like Redhat and Canonical get pretty close to the “won't support non-free software” thinking although they generally miss the big picture. I haven't ever heard Mark Shuttleworth say they are trying to move away from supporting non-free software or that it is a goal. I think Mark Shuttleworth did make a token gesture once by polling the community on the toppic though. In the end I was told (personally by Shuttleworth) that they were not going to work on a free software laptop as there wasn't enough demand.
I think Canonical does a great job supporting the ecosystem by providing a lot of resources even though they really haven't made money on Ubuntu yet and is still Shuttleworth's money. They also got the support of companies and universities to mirror their packages all over the US which is nice.
I've tried Debian before and keep coming back to the Ubuntu based ones due to the level of polish with an Ubuntu release not only in the LTS but also in the 6 month releases. I also like that they have a dedicated server edition (which I use) and the wealth of packages on launchpad.
I know Red Hat gets a lot of money for the commercial support of their OS, but Canonical is another company that is pretty serious about it as well.
So like you said, without Red Hat, IBM, Oracle, and Canonical, there would be no Trisquel and we should be thankful that these big companies are willing to take Linux seriously.
I am a member!
If I'm recalling my numbers right Canonical has about 500 developers the last time I checked. That is up from 80 a few years ago. It is difficult to compete with that kind of pool. I might be wrong about the 500 developer count. They have at least that many employees and if it is anything like it was a few years ago I believe they are mostly developers so it might not be far off even if I'm wrong.
I don't know of any other distribution with so many developers. Novell and Redhat are probably competing although it seems like they really have targeted a different market from the feel of the distribution. In fact Redhat has explicitly stated that much and I'm pretty confident in saying Novell remains a 'network' company or at least never really got into the desktop. I think when SUSE was a German operation back in early 2000's they were more desktop oriented.
Redhat has 3,200 employees according to wikipedia. I don't know how many are developers. Redhat hasn't focused on the desktop like Canonical for 15 -18 years. Compare that to Canonical which was prior to 11.04. They still are much more focused on consumer devices than Redhat.
Novell says they employee 3,600 people. Again I don't know the developer count. I believe Novell is a dying company though.
The good news about Novell and Canonical dying is Redhat isn't going anywhere and they contribute significantly to the desktop. Possibly more than Canonical. That is at least in terms of code. For whatever reason they just don't put out a polished desktop distribution like Trisquel, Canonical, and Linux Mint. I don't mean to exclude other distributions. I'm just naming those which are free and/or at the top in numbers of users.
Ideally what I would like to see is a developer pool independent of hand outs. There is no reason you can't make money on free software. Our own success shows that its feasible. I don't believe we are the only ones to have a successful business model around desktop GNU/Linux. There was one other distribution which I'll say was successful in terms of having had brought in sufficient dollars to stay afloat and even prosper. I won't mention the company due to the particular distaste this community had for it at the time. They did a lot of things wrong although I think much of it was blown out of proportion. As much as they spent on PR the top executives ruined it. They didn't get it even though the company was largely going in the right direction. The part they didn't get was you can't go saying things which anger the larger community no matter how right you think you are. Had the main shareholder not screwed things up financially for the company they would probably be a free distribution today (or close to it-they did exit with a mostly free distribution- at least to the extent Ubuntu is free- which it isn't- but it is based largely free software-Unity for instance, etc vs non-free stuff SUSE produced in the day or Xandros). That is a pretty big step for a company that was cautious and essentially started out as a business based on non-free software. They never did completely exit the non-free business although I bet they could have given enough time. Everything developed in house was free'd by the end.
For about five years, the Debian project has gathered more than 1000 developers.
I am a member!
If I'm recalling my numbers right Canonical has about 500 developers the last
time I checked. That is up from 80 a few years ago. It is difficult to
compete with that kind of pool. I might be wrong about the 500 developer
count. They have at least that many employees and if it is anything like it
was a few years ago I believe they are mostly developers so it might not be
far off even if I'm wrong.
I don't know of any other distribution with so many developers. Novell and
Redhat are probably competing although it seems like they really have
targeted a different market from the feel of the distribution. In fact Redhat
has explicitly stated that much and I'm pretty confident in saying Novell
remains a 'network' company or at least never really got into the desktop. I
think when SUSE was a German operation back in early 2000's they were more
desktop oriented.
Redhat has 3,200 employees according to wikipedia. I don't know how many are
developers. Redhat hasn't focused on the desktop like Canonical for 15 -18
years. Compare that to Canonical which was prior to 11.04. They still are
much more focused on consumer devices than Redhat.
Novell says they employee 3,600 people. Again I don't know the developer
count. I believe Novell is a dying company though.
The good news about Novell and Canonical dying is Redhat isn't going anywhere
and they contribute significantly to the desktop. Possibly more than
Canonical. That is at least in terms of code. For whatever reason they just
don't put out a polished desktop distribution like Trisquel, Canonical, and
Linux Mint. I don't mean to exclude other distributions. I'm just naming
those which are free and/or at the top in numbers of users.
Ideally what I would like to see is a developer pool independent of hand
outs. There is no reason you can't make money on free software. Our own
success shows that its feasible. I don't believe we are the only ones to have
a successful business model around desktop GNU/Linux. There was one other
distribution which I'll say was successful in terms of having had brought in
sufficient dollars to stay afloat and even prosper. I won't mention the
company due to the particular distaste this community had for it at the time.
They did a lot of things wrong although I think much of it was blown out of
proportion. As much as they spent on PR the top executives ruined it. They
didn't get it even though the company was largely going in the right
direction. The part they didn't get was you can't go saying things which
anger the larger community no matter how right you think you are. Had the
main shareholder not screwed things up financially for the company they would
probably be a free distribution today (or close to it-they did exit with a
mostly free distribution- at least to the extent Ubuntu is free- which it
isn't- but it is based largely free software-Unity for instance, etc vs
non-free stuff SUSE produced in the day or Xandros). That is a pretty big
step for a company that was cautious and essentially started out as a
business based on non-free software. They never did completely exit the
non-free business although I bet they could have given enough time.
Everything developed in house was free'd by the end.
I think Canonical does a great job supporting the ecosystem by providing a
lot of resources even though they really haven't made money on Ubuntu yet and
is still Shuttleworth's money. They also got the support of companies and
universities to mirror their packages all over the US which is nice.
I've tried Debian before and keep coming back to the Ubuntu based ones due to
the level of polish with an Ubuntu release not only in the LTS but also in
the 6 month releases. I also like that they have a dedicated server edition
(which I use) and the wealth of packages on launchpad.
I know Red Hat gets a lot of money for the commercial support of their OS,
but Canonical is another company that is pretty serious about it as well.
So like you said, without Red Hat, IBM, Oracle, and Canonical, there would be
no Trisquel and we should be thankful that these big companies are willing to
take Linux seriously.
I am a member!
We have looked at FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other BSD distributions in terms of
chipset support. If you think Trisquel lacks support for hardware then BSD
doesn't support anything at all.
:)
While some of our products do work with at least some BSD flavors a lot of
it is only on the verge of working. Most of the hardware which does work is
due to the free Linux drivers being ported. The problem is a lack of people
to do the actual porting and that a lot of hardware isn't free software
friendly. The stuff that really is freedom friendly should be portable in
most cases.
GNU/Linux has a lot of commercial support on the desktop. If it wasn't for
commercial companies like Redhat, IBM, Oracle (ok, lets be honest, Sun really
did the funding, and Oracle did the killing) funding development GNU/Linux
would not exist as we know it. Even Trisquel couldn't exist.
Most developers working on GNU/Linux are paid to do so. They are not
volunteers. This is not an attack on those who do make contributions without
payment. There are just so few people who are independently wealthy that they
can afford to make significant contributions. While some critical parts and
developers are paid for by non-profits the developers are still being paid.
Then you have to ask who funds these non-profits? It is the same entities who
are paying the developers to work on GNU/Linux. I think Trisquel is one of
the few projects where this is not the case.
I think is part of the problem free software faces. Those who are funding
development aren't concerned about freedom. They aren't concerned about the
desktop. The money going into desktop development is largely without a return
on the investment.
If you look at the larger GNU/Linux ecosystem you will see there is a lot
non-free software. From the Adobe Flash player to file formats. While
Realplayer, Adobe, AMD and others have released specifications and source
code for some of the the non-free GNU/Linux software most don't release
everything. These are largely token efforts.
These companies don't really care about GNU/Linux or software freedom. They
care about the money and being able to sell the products they create.
Marketing gets to say things like 99% of systems support flash by releasing a
GNU/Linux version. The non-free tools and services are where they make the
money. It is probably why Microsoft worked with Novell. The truth behind the
numbers is probably closer to 85% fully support XYZ and 15% don't despite
these 99% claims.
It's not true that the FSF doesn't approve of any BDS system because of the other free licenses they uses. The FSF does recommend the latest GNU GPL license for most software mainly because of it's copy-left function, but this isn't mandatory for a program to be approved by them.
They don't approve of any BSD system, because they don't know of any such system which is dedicated to free software, like Trisquel is.
See:
It's not true that the FSF doesn't approve of any BDS system because of the
other free licenses they uses. They do recommend the latest GNU GPL license
for most software mainly because of it's copy-left function, but this isn't
mandatory for a program to be approved by them.
They don't approve of any BSD system, because they don't know of any such
system which is dedicated to free software, like Trisquel is.
See:
http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
I think there is not only tension between the GPL and BSD camps in regard to the licenses, but possibly the operating systems as well since the licenses represent the majority of the software included:
"The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his research results, or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company on the assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized." - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
"So who is right? Well, the BSD camp is. The BSD is no doubt a freer license, it gives you the right to decide what rights to bundle with the software. That is much closer to the absolute meaning of “freedom” than the GPL. Alas, it’s not “completely” free, because you can’t remove the name of the software’s author and replace it with “Leonardo da Vinci”." - http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/15/gpl-vs-bsd-a-matter-of-sustainability/
"David Chisnall casts a critical eye over the GNU General Public License (GPL) and asks whether it's done more harm than good for the Free Software movement." - http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1390172
Ok that first article you linked is about open-source and making $$.
Free software (what we are concerned about here) is black and white. Does a license provide for the 4 freedoms or not. Both the modified BSD license and GPL are both free software licenses.
I believe your concern is with the copyleft portion of the GPL. You say that BSD is "a freer license" and I believe you say that because it doesn't have the copyleft part. However you forget what software freedom is about. Read the page I linked above. Free software is about freedom for users not for developers. The second link you give has an awful example about copyleft using a candybar with the "restriction" that you keep half and give half to a friend. This is a false analogy (logical fallacy).
Regardless if you don't like the GPL as a free software license there are plenty of others for you to choose.
Well I'm a student getting out of college in a few months... and I'm already making good money off of GPL software...
Can you imagine why the 3 most used CMSs in the world use GPL as their preferred license, why the most popular server OS kernel is GPLd, and why the GPLd OpenJDK became the official JDK. This is because GPL is a better license, period.
GPL ensures that software remains free, not like BSD where your competitor or a large company can simply take your code and make a proprietary product, leaving YOU, the small business, or the startup, or the student enterpreuner, pretty much out of business, and probably BROKE.
Oh, don't misunderstand me. That is awesome if you are making good money off free software. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I was just stressing the point (which is often forgotten) that free software is for the users.
The developers of non-free programs already have the 4 freedoms. They are the copyright holders so they can do whatever they want with the program. It is the users who lose out.
Oh sorry... That was a reply for t3g. I should've quoted him there. :P
And for the record... I'm all for copyleft. I believe that non-copyleft licenses should be abolished. In fact, I'm going to release all software I write under AGPL :D
Oh I would fully support GPL over BSD in either the standard GPL or AGPL. By providing those links, I was only showing what some "other people" thought about the two licences and doesn't fully support my views.
I do agree that it can suck when licenses like Apache and BSD allow another company to take your work and lock it into a proprietary product without giving the source code back with their changes. Unfortunately there is some dislike for copyleft licences and why companies like Apple will not allow GPL software on their mobile app stores.
It's great if you support GPL :D
And the companies like Apple that don't allow GPLd software on their stores are just afraid of it taking over the world :D :D
It's great if you support GPL :D
And the companies like Apple that don't allow GPLd software on their stores
are just afraid of it taking over the world :D :D
Oh I would fully support GPL over BSD in either the standard GPL or AGPL. By
providing those links, I was only showing what some "other people" thought
about the two licences and doesn't fully support my views.
I do agree that it can suck when licenses like Apache and BSD allow another
company to take your work and lock it into a proprietary product without
giving the source code back with their changes. Unfortunately there is some
dislike for copyleft licences and why companies Apple will not allow GPL
software on their mobile app stores.
Oh sorry... That was a reply for t3g. I should've quoted him there. :P
Oh, don't misunderstand me. That is awesome if you are making good money off
free software. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I was just
stressing the point (which is often forgotten) that free software is for the
users.
The developers of non-free programs already have the 4 freedoms. They are
the copyright holders so they can do whatever they want with the program. It
is the users who lose out.
Ok that first article you linked is about open-source and making $$.
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free software] (what we are
concerned about here) is black and white. Does a license provide for the 4
freedoms or not. Both the modified BSD license and GPL are both free
software licenses.
I believe your concern is with the copyleft portion of the GPL. You say that
BSD is "a freer license" and I believe you say that because it doesn't have
the copyleft part. However you forget what [https://www.fsf.org/about/
software freedom is about]. Read the page I linked above. Free software is
about freedom for '''users''' not for '''developers'''. The second link you
give has an awful example about copyleft using a candybar with the
"restriction" that you keep half and give half to a friend. This is a
[http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/ac_paper/logic.shtml#avoiding
false analogy (logical fallacy)].
Regardless if you don't like the GPL as a free software license there are
[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html plenty of others for you to
choose].
Well I'm a student getting out of college in a few months... and I'm already
making good money off of GPL software...
Can you imagine why the 3 most used CMSs in the world use GPL as their
preferred license, why the most popular server OS kernel is GPLd, and why the
GPLd OpenJDK became the official JDK. This is because GPL is a better
license, period.
GPL ensures that software remains free, not like BSD where your competitor or
a large company can simply take your code and make a proprietary product,
leaving YOU, the small business, or the startup, or the student enterpreuner,
pretty much out of business, and probably BROKE.
I think this pretty much shows the conflict between the camps or at least the
BSD license:
"The GPL can present a real problem for those wishing to commercialize and
profit from software. For example, the GPL adds to the difficulty a graduate
student will have in directly forming a company to commercialize his research
results, or the difficulty a student will have in joining a company on the
assumption that a promising research project will be commercialized." -
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
I read somewhere by some FreeBSD or whatever developer saying they didn't
like the GPL because it was too restrictive and with the GPL infection of
Linux and why BSD licenses and BSD based systems are the way to go. Just
can't find it.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios