Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:38:42 -0800 From: jehamby@lightside.com (Jake Hamby) To: dyson@freebsd.org, cmott@srv.net Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702180538.VAA00777@lightside.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Mott writes: > I agree with your comments. The self-replicating nature and potential > legal complexity bothered me. The GPL is somehow a faint attempt to > remake the world in a GNU image. > > As near as I can tell, the BSD copyright is only self replicating with > respect to the notice, but people can do what they wish with the software. > I am actually a little puzzled as to the original motivation for the BSD > copyright. The Regents of the University of California had no profit > motives, nor did they want to impose the concept of free software on > others. I agree with the previous comments on the GPL. One additional thing to remember: Stallman wrote the GPL to go with the GNU project, whose original goal was to create a completely free UNIX-compatible OS and tools. They have made remarkable progress, starting with Emacs and GCC, and moving on to all of the shell commands you see in Linux today. If HURD is completed, then you will truly be able to work in an environment using GNU, and only GNU tools. In such a context, the self-replicating nature isn't an issue, because everything you're using is already GNU ... *unless* you plan to use this system in a commercial environment, or develop non-free software with it. RMS refuses to use ANY non-free program if he has the choice, including Netscape and the others that are "free" but not "Free" software (don't have source code). But also remember that RMS has said repeatedly that he believes ALL software should be free, and refuses to be convinced that in some scenarios this is not economically viable. He believes that somehow programmers will be able to make money from supporting software because grateful users will be willing to pay for support, even though they are under no obligation to. This is actually true for some companies, like Cygnus, which provide paid support for GNU development tools, but these are isolated cases compared to the software industry as a whole. What about embedded systems, like the software controlling your car? Why should Ford give away their proprietary engine-control software so Honda, GM, and others could use it in their cars (of course they'd have to give you the source code ;) ? Software developed on corporate time, or under contract, is just like any other resource, and you don't let your competitors into your office to look through your filing cabinets, so why should they get your in-house software under GPL? It just doesn't make sense, yet this is EXACTLY what RMS proposes in his GNU manifesto. Even military software should be free, he argues! Just lovely... As for the motivation behind the BSD license, it's quite simple, and not tied up with anyone's idealistic, unrealistic, anti-commercial philosophy (sorry for the harsh words, but really, ALL software should be free? :). Berkeley is a university, therefore they really CAN'T make money. I work at JPL, which is managed by Caltech, and it's the exact same situation. Having said that, they don't want to release the code into the public domain, because then they don't get credit for the wonderful work they've done, and they don't want to be responsible if somebody else takes the code and puts his own name on it. On the other hand, they don't want to be liable if somebody uses the code and loses all their data. So the BSD license is basically the simplest possible legally binding license which gives Berkeley the recognition they deserve, dissolves them from any legal liability, and allows free usage of the software for any purpose as long as the license is preserved. Simple, eh? -- Jake
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702180538.VAA00777>