Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:10:59 +0100 From: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010710151059.A52201@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20010707160255.A18525@thinksec.no>; from eivind@FreeBSD.org on Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 04:02:55PM %2B0200 References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010707160255.A18525@thinksec.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=mutt-dogma-51951-3 On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 04:02:55PM +0200, Eivind Eklund wrote: Great information, thanks! | Either Microsoft make something that all potential BSD developers are happy | with (and if they do, more power to them!) or development will continue. | Microsoft can only derive from our code, not take it away from us. Good point. I'm tired of hearing this word 'steal' when applied to the BSD license. The GPL 'steals' back from the programmer, so what is the difference? | among easily excitable people, Linux attracts more easily excitable people, Well, that is for sure! | > GPL license makes it very hard and cost inefficient to produce a proprietary | > version with locked-in features and customers. GPL license *encourages* | > developers to contribute to the commons, because they can be safe in the | > knowledge that their competitor is not easily going to use this against | > them, nor could a competitor create an incompatible and secret fork (other | > than for internal use). | | This is only true if the developers are basically paranoids that will only | program if they can be sure of not being in some mythical fashion "exploited". | | This may be true of a large number of Linux developers, but the rest of us | basically program for at least one out of three reasons: | (1) It is fun | (2) It solves annoyances in our everyday world or in the programs we are using | (3) We get paid for it | | These reasons do not get away just because a larger amount of entities get | benefit from our code. More good points.... <snip> | More emotionally laden nonsense. There are a bunch of reasons to contribute | changes back to the open source projects: | (1) You get much less integration work when you want to utilize newer version | of the open source project. Basically, the changes you have now made | maintain themselves WRT the open source project for free, rather than | needing more care. That's one I never thought of or hear stated in that way. | (2) You get a bunch of experts from various areas testing, reviewing and | debugging your code. This has a large relevance on getting increased | quality. | | (3) You get external goodwill. This makes the panel of experts willing help | even when it is with things that are not directly relevant for them. | | (4) You get internal goodwill. Employees are more happy, and you get an | easier time recruiting the people that are experienced with the codebase | you work with. | | (5) You can create a de-facto standard, as people can use your code directly | whether they develop a proprietary product or a free one. <snip> | > None of this crap is possible with GPL. | | And what is the result? A completely separate codebase, where there is no | possibility of the companies contributing to the free codebase, as the | companies are working on a totally unrelated codebase. It really shows that the GPL fanatics are just emotionally charged up over the issue. No one likes bully monopolies, but getting angry and using a different oppressive license in return sure doesn't solve any problems. <snip> | The choice of a BSD vs GPL license is far from always based on trust in people | not wanting to exploit the codebase. The choice is based on an analysis of | what we think result in the maximum amount of contributions and in our own | maximum benefit from the contributions we do. | | > Just because a thing like apache did not get seriously forked is no | > indication that it cannot ever happen. Why take risk? Why use the | > economical lever, when the legal lever is much more direct and more powerful | > in this case? | | Because we see benefits in properitary extensions. When somebody use our | codebase in a proprietary environment, they are working on the codebase. This | means they likely will be producing beneficial changes to the codebase. These | changes come in two forms - strategic changes, that are sellable and part of | added value, and tactical changes, that have value as levers for creating the | strategic changes, but no intrisic competitive advantage. The latter usually | are more plentiful than the former, and have larger value when given back to | the community (buying goodwill) than when kept proprietary (costing money to | maintain). Could you give an example of these 'levers' ? Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010710151059.A52201>