I'll care about this when ...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DarrenR114 Apr 07, 2009 1:07 PM EDT |
Jeremy Allison puts his money where his mouth is by quitting his nice cushy job at Google after they refuse to use the decidedly non-free AGPL. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 07, 2009 4:18 PM EDT |
non-free AGPL? |
| tracyanne Apr 07, 2009 4:20 PM EDT |
That's the other AGPL |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 07, 2009 4:25 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, you lost me there... |
| DarrenR114 Apr 07, 2009 5:14 PM EDT |
The AGPL is NOT "free" - it puts all sorts of restrictions on those individuals and organizations that use code licensed under it. Contrary to the pronouncement by that egotistical RMS, restrictions != freedom. Calling any form of the GPL (AGPL, LGPL, GPL etc.) "free" is comparable to the slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei". The BSD license is closer to being "free" (with the only restriction being the copyright requirement.) |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 07, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
Darren..., I think you got it! Now I know you got it! We at MS love really, really free stuff we can hide behind the screen and sell as ours. Now that's freedom, but none for you we charge top dollar for our efforts. You know bugs and stuff that f&*ks up your expectations. But fear NOT, we will get it right in the next version (or the one after that), but it will cost you. See free does not mean cost free. So tell that ersatz dicator, RMS, where to get off. Get him boy, bite hard. Freedom. WE LOVE BSD and all equivalent licenses. Your Buddy Txt. |
| azerthoth Apr 07, 2009 6:15 PM EDT |
Thus comes the differences between 'free' and 'free' or 'free'. Better phrased as a restricted redistribution license (GPL) vs an unrestricted redistribution license (BSD). Which one is more free, depends on which definition of free you choose to use. Personally I have always found it a bit silly to say your making something more free (in any definition) by adding more and more usage restrictions on it. Thats like opening a drawstring bag by pulling the strings firmly in opposing directions. just my .02 on which license represents freedom as I see it. p.s. anyone seen my horse's corpse and whip? |
| tracyanne Apr 07, 2009 6:50 PM EDT |
@Sander, just joking. @Darren and anyone else moaning about the restrictions of the GPL. The point of those restrictions is to keep the code freely available to everyone to use to study to modify to redistribute, unlike the freedom of the BSD license, which is so free that anyone who chooses can take the code and lock it away so no one else can use, study, modify or redistribute. But of course it's entirely possible that Darren, and all those others that complain about the restrictions of the GPL, actually want to be able to take the code and lock it away so no one else can use, study, modify or redistribute it. |
| dinotrac Apr 07, 2009 7:32 PM EDT |
tracyanne : which is so free that anyone who chooses can take the code and lock it away so no one else can use, study, modify or redistribute. Oh come on. At least be honest. The BSD license allows people to keep THEIR OWN CODE secret. But guess what? So does the GPL, so long as you don't distribute it to others. Neither license allows you to lock up somebody else's code. |
| azerthoth Apr 07, 2009 8:36 PM EDT |
ta did you see a complaint? was I whining? |
| tracyanne Apr 07, 2009 8:50 PM EDT |
@az, I dunno, were you? @Dino, the difference is the GPL requires reciprocation. Some people have a problem with that, that's why they prefer the BSD license. |
| gus3 Apr 08, 2009 12:38 AM EDT |
Quoting:Neither license allows you to lock up somebody else's code.The last I knew, the BSD license did allow that. Someone can patch BSD-licensed code, compile it, release it, and not release any source code (original or patchset). I worked for a company that did exactly that. Granted that isn't "locking up somebody else's code" in an immediate sense, but where I was, putting somebody else's (unpatched) code in would have rendered the system essentially useless. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2009 4:28 AM EDT |
Quoting:Calling any form of the GPL (AGPL, LGPL, GPL etc.) "free" is comparable to the slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei". What a load of poppycock. It all depends on what you want to be free. With BSD, the *recipient* of the code is free. With (A)GPL, the code itself is free. It all comes down to a simple question. Which is more important: the code you wrote or the people you're giving it to? For me it's the code, so I license all my work under (A|L)GPL licenses. |
| dinotrac Apr 08, 2009 9:43 AM EDT |
ta - No. The GPL does not require any reciprication at all. I can use GPL'd software to my heart's content. I can change it, I can do pretty much anything I care to -- with one exception -- with no reciprocation whatsoever. The exception is that I cannot distribute that changed software in a binary form that incorporates the GPL'd code. However -- If I were clever enough, I could create a blob and patch mechanism by which the user of the software gets both pieces and puts them together. If you'll recall, the GPL places no restrictions on use, so, if I am clever enough, and willing to put in the work, I could achieve a clumsy version of the BSD freedom. |
| tracyanne Apr 08, 2009 8:04 PM EDT |
@dino, as usual Sander says it better. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 12:15 PM EDT |
except sander didn't say what dino did, he said what I said, but better. Dino pointed out that to a creative mind the GPL offers no more protection than the BSD license if approached in a particular fashion. p.s. @dino, good to see you back in action. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 12:48 PM EDT |
May I also draw your attention to http://www.h-online.com/open/The-GPL-Not-fade-away--/feature... . |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2009 1:32 PM EDT |
Sander - Poppycock right back at you. How is the code you wrote any less free under the BSD license than it is under GPL? The code you wrote remains available to anybody who wants it under both licenses. What isn't as free is the code you DIDN'T write. |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2009 2:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:The code you wrote remains available to anybody who wants it under both licenses.Sorry, that's incorrect. Under the BSD license, you can patch one line or five hundred thousand lines, release it as binary-only, and nobody can force you to reveal your patches. The license does not require it. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 2:46 PM EDT |
gus the code he wrote and released under a BSD license is available still, someone tying it into something else and not releasing that in no way removes the original code from the pool. It just doesn't give back any changes. The original code is still there for anyone else to proprietarize, and the next guy too. |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2009 3:05 PM EDT |
azer -- Yup, perzactly. gus3 -- When you tell somebody they're wrong, you really should try to be right. You might be surprised to learn that there is no provision within the BSD that magically provides the power to withdraw all known copies of the code you are modifying from circulation. Been watching too much Star Trek, methinks. |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2009 3:13 PM EDT |
az, that is true only of released BSD source. It is not binding upon any patches. If you are only patching the BSD source, that counts as "code you wrote," but there is no requirement to release that patch set. If you choose not to release it, then it is not "available to anybody who wants it." |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
dino, We were typing around the same time. I think my reply to azerthoth also pertains to your comment. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 3:24 PM EDT |
Um, isn't that what Dino and I said? |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2009 3:49 PM EDT |
az, Again, from dino's comment that I quoted earlier: Quoting:The code you wrote remains available to anybody who wants it under both licenses.The patches I wrote are required to remain free under GPL. They are not required to remain free under BSD. As for dino's latest comment: Quoting:You might be surprised to learn that there is no provision within the BSD that magically provides the power to withdraw all known copies of the code you are modifying from circulation.I said nothing about "all known copies." But I can decide to stop distributing my BSD-licensed patch set two weeks after putting it on my website, while continuing to offer the binaries. The GPL does not grant me that option. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 09, 2009 3:58 PM EDT |
@dino & azerthoth: The BSD license does not safeguard the freedom of my code. Yes, what I release is free but there's no guarantee it will stay free. That's what the GPL (or copyleft in general) does. It makes sure that any user who receives an application with my source code incorporated in it can access that code. As I said above, the BSD means freedom to whomever you give the code to. The GPL means freedom for the code itself. In order to safeguard the freedom of the code itself, the GPL needs to sacrifice some of the freedom for the initial recipient. But in return it ensures greater freedom to anyone downstream from that initial recipient. |
| bigg Apr 09, 2009 4:13 PM EDT |
This is an interesting thread. Two sides going at it. Each claims the other side is wrong, and supports that position with statements that are correct but not exclusive of the arguments of the other side. The BSD license says the original code will remain free, but the original code in a modified form does not have to remain free. The GPL says the original code, modified or not, is free. It appears that all participants in the discussion agree. Time to move on. I know you guys like to argue, but at least please disagree before doing so. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 4:25 PM EDT |
Sander, exactly. Gus, are you being obtuse on purpose. No one has said it doesnt. We have only said that under BSD, the only code that you have any control over is that which you physically maintain control over. With the BSD license anything past your NIC, is out of your control and under BSD you have almost no rights to any other application of that code other than the obligatory "kilroy was here". Dino's original comment "The code you wrote remains available to anybody who wants it under both licenses." is 100% correct. What you wrote is available, what anyone writes in addition to that ... well thats up to them under BSD. Even under BSD, as the author you have the ability to change license if you wish. You can change it to GPL the very next day, or proprietary even. However if during that 24 hour stretch someone grabs ahold of it while it's under BSD, then that version specifically stays under BSD's permissive license and there isnt a darned thing you can do about it ... ever. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 09, 2009 4:49 PM EDT |
To claim that the GPL ensures that "software stays free" is tantamount to claiming that "software" is to be treated as some sort of sentient being. But then again, who knows? Maybe according to the worldview of that egotistical blowhard, RMS, software is a sentient being and entitled to all the rights and privileges we normally associate with human beings. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 09, 2009 5:13 PM EDT |
Darren, you're just arguing because you have a personal dislike of RMS. That sort of remarks have nothing to do with software licensing. It's not the first time I've seen you do this. Please stop derailing threads in this way. Either leave your ad hominem arguments at the door when replying or don't reply at all in threads like this. I'm asking this as a fellow member, not as an editor (I can't go around moderating threads I'm heavily involved in :-) |
| DarrenR114 Apr 09, 2009 5:57 PM EDT |
@sander - Being critical of the Great and Almighty RMS has EVERYTHING to do with criticising the GPL as being non-free (which is where I started this thread.) The only way anyone can claim that the GPL (or its related licenses) are "free" is if they accept that whackjob Stallman's contorted and twisted definition of "freedom". Ipso facto, judging the lunacy of Stallman is very germane to the discussion of whether or not a license is "free" or not. The man is most definitely not in support of advancing the progress of the human race and that should raise serious concerns as to what his goal with the GPL is: http://edward.oconnor.cx/2005/04/rms |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 09, 2009 6:11 PM EDT |
I rest my case. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 09, 2009 6:12 PM EDT |
Quoting: The man is most definitely not in support of advancing the progress of the human race and that should raise serious concerns as to what his goal with the GPL is: Your link or comment has nothing to do with Free Software or the GPL. RMS may be a jerk, but that's beside the point. Linus Torvalds acts like a jerk sometimes, too. As do I. As do you. |
| TxtEdMacs Apr 09, 2009 6:15 PM EDT |
DarrenR..., And I am sure MS is in perfect agreement with your assessments. However, I have qualms about your associates*, they are not noted as being real freedom lovers. Therefore, I tend to dismiss large portions of your critique seeing you exhibit too many characteristics you assign to your enemies of freedom, particularly RMS. So tell me, why the hate? Your can whisper it in my ear if it is an embarrassing admission. Your Buddy Txt. * Despite MS Vista Mega (Special Edition) being my favorite OS. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 6:17 PM EDT |
aw geez Sander, now you have to go and be all reasonable and make me agree with you ... you are so 'not fun'. I think I too will resist taking the bait Darren has offered up. Back to you Gus, or should we go find something else to disagree about bud? |
| gus3 Apr 09, 2009 7:01 PM EDT |
az, you can't even write something without contradicting yourself; see your 8:25 comment above. You say something isn't available unless I release it, then you turn right around and say it's available equally under both GPL and BSD. If you can't understand your own words, why should I bother writing my own? |
| dinotrac Apr 09, 2009 7:18 PM EDT |
OK Sander, you made a claim - a silly one at that. Tell me the way that BSD'd code becomes non-free that does not apply equally to GPL'd code. I'd be interested in knowing. |
| azerthoth Apr 09, 2009 7:20 PM EDT |
Read closer, there is no contradiction, I see where you got derailed in the comment but I'm uncertain how to politely phrase a correction without being insulting. All I can suggest is a closer reading. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 10, 2009 2:35 AM EDT |
That's easy Dino. I write some BSD code. Some proprietary software house picks it up and integrates in in their closed source app. The users of said closed source app don't have access to the source code I wrote. And that's what the GPL safeguards. Everyone using my code can have access to it. |
| garymax Apr 10, 2009 2:50 AM EDT |
So theoretically, someone could take the code you wrote and sell it back to you under a different license and you'd never know it... Where's Eben Moglin when we need him... :-) |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 9:40 AM EDT |
Sander - Come on, you're a programmer. Don't turn off your logic circuits because you want to make a fallacious point. Quoting: The users of said closed source app don't have access to the source code I wrote. This goes back to the magic universal code remover. If you stop making the code available and nobody else in the world has it, then you're right. That's equally true of GPL'd code, btw. And Gus3 -- What do you mean the GPL doesn't grant you that option? You don't need the GPL to distribute YOUR code! You can even distribute it under the GPL without source code because you, as the author, are not relying on the GPL for your rights. What the GPL will stop you from doing is distributing a patch set that incorporates somebody else's GPL'd code, but that was my original point. The GPL provides no more protection for YOUR code than the BSD. The difference comes when somebody else's code is involved. |
| gus3 Apr 10, 2009 1:52 PM EDT |
dino, you are conflating source and object. I write a code library "L", and license it under BSD. Someone else takes that library, patches it with the "P1" patch set, and links it with their own application "A". Without those "P1" patches, the code that I wrote won't work properly in their application. Now, the code I wrote has a security hole. I post an alert on my site, with a fix "P2" for the source. But guess what, most people using this other program "A" don't know that their program has a security hole in the "P1"-patched "L", because they don't even know which library has been incorporated. They only know that I wrote something in it (copyright must be retained in the docs: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html). They don't have the option of fixing it themselves, because without the necessary "P1" patches that someone else put in it, the program "A" won't work. A few customers do figure out that "L" has been incorporated into "A", but they don't know that it's been patched. They download code from my site, build it, and install it, only to find out that the program they bought suddenly doesn't work at all. If it was in an embedded system, that system might be more functional as a doorstop. My code is not available to fix their program. They must wait for the developers/vendors to provide a binary library which incorporates both "P1" to make it work in "A", and "P2" to close the security hole. Even then, it's a gamble for the customer, who hopes that "P1" doesn't affect the behavior of "P2". The developer/vendor is not required to let the customer audit the code before deploying it. Totally permitted under the BSD license. Totally forbidden under the (L)GPL. If you think this has never happened, replace "library" with "network stack", and "application" with "Windows TCP/IP". Sure, you can download and read the BSD-supplied code, but how will that help you fix the busted Windows networking stack? You can't download the code that Microsoft used to build it; you must rely on them to supply a replacement library, and hope that their fixes didn't muck up something else. Or, if you do get to look at the code, you must sign an NDA which prohibits you from holding them publicly accountable for their incompetence. |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 3:29 PM EDT |
gus - I'm not conflating anything. My position -- the correct one -- is that both the BSD and GPL provide equal protection to YOUR code. They don't provide equal protection to somebody else's code.. Your code is absolutely available. Will it do users much good? Probably not, but they made the choice to take something that was available in binary-only form, so -- who cares? If they want to fix something themselves, they should get something with source code. Your problem isn't your code, but the fact that you can't mess with somebody else's code. If you don't like it, don't whine. Make something useful enough that nobody will want the other stuff. |
| gus3 Apr 10, 2009 5:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:they made the choice to take something that was available in binary-only form, so -- who cares? If they want to fix something themselves, they should get something with source code.I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. If something is buggy, the end-user could be stuck under BSD's "hold harmless" clause. At least, w/ the GPL, source availability is (supposed to be) guaranteed. I think I see where we're disagreeing. You say that "[my] code is absolutely available" (implying "from me"?). Would you agree, or not, that the copyright with my name on it means it is still mine? If a third-party dev retains my copyright as the BSD license requires, but secretly modifies it, maybe to the point of incompatibility, can I still claim ownership to it? Based on your earlier comments, I'll guess that you'll answer "yes, to the parts that you wrote." But here's the catch: how can I find the parts I wrote? Without being able to filter out the third-party modifications, how can I demarcate their ownership from mine? "Did you write this library?" --"I wrote parts of this library." "Which parts?" --"I don't know. I can't tell which parts I didn't write." If it's still "my" code, that's a heckuva way to "own" it. |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 5:16 PM EDT |
> Would you agree, or not, that the copyright with my name on it means it is still mine?
So long as you don't assign it away. >If a third-party dev retains my copyright as the BSD license requires, but secretly modifies it, maybe to the point of incompatibility, can I still claim ownership to it? You retain ownership to your code, but not to the modifications. But -- and this is key -- you can grant a license without surrendering ownership. So, if somebody does something you don't like, but is allowed under the license, then there's nothing you can do. And yes -- you do still own your code. You can grab your copy and make new stuff. You can compete with the other people using your code, etc. |
| gus3 Apr 10, 2009 6:05 PM EDT |
That doesn't answer the last question: How do I find what I own, if I am unable to identify what I don't own? |
| dinotrac Apr 10, 2009 6:14 PM EDT |
gus3 - An enigma wrapped in a conumdrum, eh? About the same way you'd find out that Microsoft was using a BSD TCP/IP stack, I guess. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 10, 2009 7:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:Come on, you're a programmer. Don't turn off your logic circuits because you want to make a fallacious point. You might want to run a unit test on your own logic circuits :-) Take a look again at the example case I gave: Quoting:I write some BSD code. Some proprietary software house picks it up and integrates in in their closed source app. The users of said closed source app don't have access to the source code I wrote. Where in this scenario can the user of the application get my code? I distributed the BSD code to the software house. There's no obligation on my end to distribute it to anyone else. I don't have to put it up on a website where the user of the app can get it. I may not even *have* the code anymore. (And that's not a hypothetical scenario. I've written quite a bit of GPL code that I distributed to my clients but haven't put up on my website. Some of the code I don't even have copies of anymore. The GPL ensures that if my client distributes it to someone else, they will have the code too.) Not to mention that the users of the closed source application doesn't even have to know what software of mine has been integrated in the closed source app. The BSD license says that the author of the app has to acknowledge my copyright. He doesn't have to specify exactly what files and which versions he incorporated. He doesn't have to provide a link to my website. And if the users do find me anyway it is very likely that even I don't know exactly which files and versions were used by the software house. To make this example practical, take a look at Windows XP. They use BSD code and state the copyrights. But what BSD code is in Windows? Which versions? We have no idea. There is no way to get out hands on the exact BSD source code that Microsoft integrated into Windows. All we know is that Microsoft at least took the TCP/IP stack and we can roughly guess which version it might have been, but we only know that because of bugs that are similar in the XP stack and the BSD stack. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!