- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
A Cloudy Future
|
|
|
Comments (48)
28 earlier comments in the full thread.
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 :-)
I'm asking this as a fellow member, not as an editor (I can't go around moderating threads I'm heavily involved in :-)
@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
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
I rest my case.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
If you can't understand your own words, why should I bother writing my own?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And that's what the GPL safeguards. Everyone using my code can have access to it.
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... :-)
Where's Eben Moglin when we need him... :-)
Sander -
Come on, you're a programmer. Don't turn off your logic circuits because you want to make a fallacious point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
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.