Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 16:02:55 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> To: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010707160255.A18525@thinksec.no> In-Reply-To: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 05:47:43PM +0100, j mckitrick wrote:
[As quotations from people he hoped to disagree with]
> You can be sure-- absolutely sure-- that BSD's days are numbered now
> that Gates & Company have embraced it. If Microsoft absorbs BSD and
> releases it to the public as their "open source" product, you can be sure that
> development on it outside of Redmond will stop dead in its tracks, because no
> genuine open source developer, including those from BSD itself, who has any
> intelligence at all, or pride in his work, or sense of fairness, will
> continue to work on it, knowing that Microsoft's miscreants will steal the
> fruit of his labor without the slightest qualm of conscience. Once BSD
> belongs to Microsoft, it will be on a slippery slope to oblivion.
Most of the BSD developers are not driven by a hate for Microsoft - they are
driven by a love of what they are doing. If Microsoft base an operating
system on BSD, this do not block our use of BSD, and it does not make it
harder to contribute.
> Microsoft can take a perfectly good product and, with their onerous licensing
> schemes, proprietary extensions to the code, and generally evil intentions,
> ruin it and drive it to extinction. The same will happen to BSD under
> Microsoft.
Microsoft is already borrowing from our code. I can't say I've seen it stop
us (or even slow us down.)
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.
> But such a thing cannot happen to code protected by the GPL, and this is
> driving Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer absolutely insane as attested to by
> their recent statements in the press! That is why Microsoft hates Linux:
> They can't buy it or steal it, and that fact is driving them nuts. They
> can see that Linux is on the path to making Microsoft redundant. And maybe
> all of this constitutes some of the reasons why BSD has not been embraced
> by the business community as widely as Linux.
This is perceived by the Linux community as being unable to happen to GPLed
code. And that protection is being perceived as being necessary, and as
creating more code contributions. Due to this perception being more common
among easily excitable people, Linux attracts more easily excitable people,
which again creates more hype around Linux compared to the number of people
using it (which also is a larger number of people than BSD in absolute terms.)
This perception at least often rests on a lack of understanding of the
underlying economics of the business of program development for the mass
market.
> <next comment>
>
> Leo - Subject: BSD license is weak for software commons ( Jun 30, 2001, 13:51:44 )
> This has been said a million times before. I guess it's time to say it
> again. BSD license is great for proprietary companies. BSD license would
> also be good if, and only if, we could honestly say that 99% of all people
> are good and altruistic. However that is not the case.
This is a faulty analysis. The BSD license has advantages in a lot of
situation if we assume that the actors are locally rational and greedy, too.
Economic reasons for this is discussed below.
> The reality is different. In the real world you have many companies and
> powerful individuals that only wait for an opportunity to use something
> without paying back. I don't think I need to give examples, do I? We all
> know many such examples. Some of them were mentioned in the talkbacks here.
This is a pure appeal to emotions.
> In light of this, the GPL is the *only* license that effectively protects a
> software commons.
More appeal to emotions, and an attempt at making the GPL "holy". Even if
copyleft fit the description (and IMO it does not), the GPL is not the only
license for copyright.
> 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.
> BSD is great for companies like M$ and Apple, because they can take what
> they want and give nothing back. They're free to produce proprietary and
> incompatible extensions. But tell me, WHAT IS THE ECONOMICAL
> INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY *CONTRIBUTE* TO BSD,
> UNDER A BSD LICENSE??? None whatsoever. None at all. None. Nil. Nie,
> No, Net, Non! They gain *nothing* by releasing their own source code under a
> BSD license.
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.
(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.
> They can't even use that for creating a de-facto standard,
> because the commons is not protected, thus the standard is not protected
> under a BSD license.
This assumes that there is a direct wish to be incompatible with any standard.
This is not correct. Companies usually wish to be compatible but have extra
features, unless they are in close to total dominance of the market in
question and are breaking anti-trust laws.
> Now, there are a few exceptions from this rule. One of them, for example,
> M$ might release some stuff under BSD for political reasons. Not because
> they actually benefit from this move directly, but because it may piss of
> GNU/Linux people or something like that. Or maybe just to say, "See, we
> really do support FreeBSD." But it would be nothing but a loss leader and
> not any kind of commitment. Nor would M$ really enjoy it, but rather do it
> out of political necessity, IF AT ALL. And as soon as the political
> necessity stops, they would stop immediately all BSD code releases, and
> quickly fork everything into a locked-in, secret, and incompatible version.
>
> 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.
> I've seen many BSD people post. They strike me as very bright and very
> altruistic. In fact, they're too altruistic. They're more altruistic and
> more naive than the GPL people. GPL people are more pragmatic. GPL person
> would say, "yea, I wanna share, but I am also going to cover my a**, thank
> you very much." BSD person says, "I share without any strings attached, even
> if this kills me or does harm in the marketplace...I don't care. I just
> share, and if someone uses this for ill gain, it's their own problem." I
> sympathize with BSD people, but I can't agree with their irresponsible
> sharing. They altruism and trust is misplaced.
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).
> It beats me. I figure most developers will continue to prefer GPL, because
> it makes good sense to use it. The OS/app with the most developer mind
> share will win. The most open OS/app will win. GPL is more open than BSD.
> GPL code base does not spawn dark shadows and hidden corners around itself.
> It IS more open. Openness wins.
More emotional nonsense. You can argue it both ways:
- "The BSD license gives each user of the original codebase more freedom in
what to do with it, and as a such BSD licensed software is more open the
GPLed software."
- "The GPL makes sure each user of a derivate work has the same freedom, and
thus makes sure there are no users with less freedom, and due to that GPLed
software is more open than BSD licensed software."
In my opinion, the former makes more sense, as "We take your freedom away, and
thus you are more free!" has never made sense to me.
Derivates of BSD licensed software may be less free than GPLed software; but
this is a completely different discussion.
Feel free to reproduce my comments.
Eivind.
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?20010707160255.A18525>