Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:56:15 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217094324.029b58d0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <vmk7vm2jbu.7vm@localhost.localdomain> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost> <20011216113458.R87600@monorchid.lemis.com> <200112170550.fBH5oea01099@aztec.santafe.edu> <4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011214175450.02da2a90@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011215232233.00e74cc0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011216221810.031b6820@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217001345.00e26280@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:10 AM 12/17/2001, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >Serious indeed. But that last part isn't necessarily correct. Unless >the copyright owners being infringed are jerks and willing and able to >threaten FreeBSD owners with serious damages and penalties (which might >not be serious or even non-zero now but could be serious with JFS) so >that they could bully FreeBSD into re-licensing. It'd cause a huge >flap. In practice, it would very likely be sufficient to just remove >the GPL code. This is what Be, Inc. did, and they were not pursued. However, they DID have to remove the GPLed code immediately. >Unfortunately, another thing that happens, in practice, is that nobody >wants to take any preventative steps until the wolf is at the door, >after JFS, etc, are distributed with FreeBSD and legal threats must be >taken seriously. (I don't know why IBM would care, but I wouldn't bet >on their lawyers.) There is a great deal of apathy, alas, in the FreeBSD community about licensing. Many people say, "Oh, it's all free software, right?" or "Everyone has the right to choose their own license" or "We don't dare eject the GPL because we'd tick off the Slashdot crowd" or "We're dependent on their toolchain, so we're stuck." The fact is that it's NOT all free software. GPLed software is not free -- either as in speech or as in beer -- to commercial developers and thus is not truly free at all. And just as commercial software license should not legally be allowed to contain unconscionable terms, neither should non-commercial ones. If a license is unconsionable, confiscatory, and discriminatory, as the GPL is, it should NOT be used. As for the fact that the BSDs are dependent upon a GPLed toolchain, this is a terrible historical accident that arose because of insufficient understanding of the GPL's ramifications and intent. It must be fixed, since ultimately dependency upon code by the FSF -- whose intentions run counter to that of the BSDs -- is an unacceptable risk. Finally, as for ticking off the Slashdot crowd: You know you're doing something novel, good, and probably very right when you stir up that hive of religiously motivated, nonthinking zealots. Let's make sure that the BSDs truly conform to, and embrace, and promote the three elements of the BSD Way: technical excellence, peer review, and true sharing of knowledge and source code with all comers. Letting the GPL (which was written when Stallman rejected the BSD Way due to spite and anger) into the mix allows his venom to poison everything. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011217094324.029b58d0>