"Words are the source of misunderstandings"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kenholmz Oct 04, 2009 1:48 PM EDT |
I love "The Little Prince" by Antoine de Saint Exupéry. I do not speak French but the translation Katherine Woods is my favorite. I was thumbing through papers lately to see what I have forgotten. I came across an article written by Jay Michaelson, published in 2004. It is titled "There's No Such Thing as a Free (Software) Lunch" (Googling the title provides links to multiple copies). It is well written, polished even. It is a basic ten page article explaining why the BSD license is superior to GPL (with multiple references). Jay Michaelson was a founder of Wasabi Systems. He acted as vice president and chief counsel. He claimed that the Free Software Foundation accepted some violations of the GPL because they wanted Linux to succeed. He specifically pointed to Loadable Kernel Modules used in embedded systems and products. He likely is a bit biased as embedded systems was the focus of Wasabi Systems (no discussion of desktop uses). I decided to do a bit of research and learn more. I remembered that Charles Hannum, a founder of the NetBSD project, pointed to Wasabi Systems as having commandeered the project by stealth and deceit. I learned that Wasabi Systems essentially disappeared in April of 2009. Red Hat made it to the Fortune 500 in 2009. Mr. Michaelson is an intelligent, well educated person and he is involved in other areas of thought and practice. These other areas are not addressed in any form here. As long as I have followed articles and postings I have noted that words are, indeed, the source of misunderstandings (in fact, many word appear to be psychological warfare). FUD is psychological warfare. This article by Michaelson was published in 2004. Linux, Gnu, the BSD's and other projects continue. Many people continue to develop under the GPL license, with many abusing it. Some others develop under the BSD license. I know there are several other licenses but my simple mind can't handle so much at one time, and Michaelson's article was primarily BSD vs. GPL. I am not arguing for either license, nor am I disparaging the BSD's. Rather, I am noting that developers and consumers continue to support the GPL in large numbers. I find it sad when detractors have to resort to words like "viral" and "communistic" (I haven't noted use of "communal" although that leads me into a reverie of the 60's/70's...). Mr. Michaelson was perhaps more sophisticated in his presentation than some others. Perhaps he has moved on or perhaps he will re-emerge in computing systems. Regardless, his article remains somewhat more polished that Ken Brown's "Samzidat". Apologies to all of you who are clearer of thought and phrasing. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 04, 2009 4:52 PM EDT |
I have noticed that the "BSD better than GPL" is pretty much a non-issue to the vast majority of people. Developers use what they choose to use, and I'm happy to have competition in licenses as well as everything else. Pretty much, "I prefer x". The one and only place I have ever seen the "BSD is so very much better than the GPL" argument vigorously made is where Microsoft shills are prevalent. Knowing how Microsoft has used BSD code within Windows at will before makes it very clear why such an argument would be advanced by Microsoft's astroturf department. |
| azerthoth Oct 04, 2009 5:40 PM EDT |
Not to sure about that Bob, there is some merit to the concept that the BSD license is more free as in total concept freedom than the GPL. BSD being ever so much closer to public domain freedom than the more restrictive 'free' license known as the GPL. Nothing wrong with either, just how you view freedoms. Its kind of hard to phrase this without starting a flame fest. |
| jdixon Oct 04, 2009 6:55 PM EDT |
> It is well written, polished even. It is a basic ten page article explaining why the BSD license is superior to GPL (with multiple references). That depends entirely on what you want to accomplish with your code. As Bob notes, it is therefore entirely up to the author how they wish to license their code, which is as it should be. > The one and only place I have ever seen the "BSD is so very much better than the GPL" argument vigorously made is where Microsoft shills are prevalent. Agreed. And that's unfortunate, as the BSD license does have it's place. Having it tainted with Microsoft's "blessing" is not really a good thing. > ....there is some merit to the concept that the BSD license is more free as in total concept freedom than the GPL. Yes, there is. There's also merit in the arguments favoring the GPL. > Its kind of hard to phrase this without starting a flame fest. Yes, it is. :) |
| kenholmz Oct 04, 2009 9:14 PM EDT |
I certainly want no flame fest. I am grateful there are alternatives and that we are free to choose among them. The person(s) in control of the project choose(s) the license. It is up to each one to decide what license is preferred for their project. In Mr. Michaelson's case, the more developers and customers who opted for the BSD license, the more likely he and company were to profit. I doubt his assertion that the FSF wants greatly for Linux to succeed and therefore allows some GPL violations to go deliberately unchallenged. I enjoy reading posts on Lxer more often than not because the conversation is intelligent and informed, usually with balanced emotional expression :) |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 05, 2009 9:18 AM EDT |
> usually with balanced emotional expression :) A few way out hither, a few way out thither, balanced. :^) Seriously, I really did mean "vigorously made". Not just "I think the BSD is closer to complete freedom", which it certainly is since it is very nearly what we label "public domain". I mean "You're stupid to use the GPL and call it freedom! Hippocrit! BSD is real freedum."{sic} Stuff like that. > I doubt his assertion that the FSF wants greatly for Linux to succeed and therefore allows some GPL violations to go deliberately unchallenged. If I may posit, we have a problem of human inventiveness meeting written rules. Sometimes those rules will have results no one expected when written, sometimes people will find a way around them. That's why there are entire libraries of law books, law makers keep trying to find ways to make the rules specific enough, or broad enough, or both at the same time, to cover all the new ways the rules get used/abused/avoided. So does writing a closed kernel module, then loading it into a running kernel, violate the GPL of the kernel itself? I personally would say no, I'm sure someone else says yes. I would not consider the FSF to be "avoiding" anything by not asserting the GPL in that case, someone else would. And I won't sit here saying that my answer is right for everyone else, either. Good Morning! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [Editors, MEMBERS, SITEADMINS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!