Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 19:55:34 -0400 From: Laurence Berland <stuyman@confusion.net> To: John Baldwin <jobaldwi@vt.edu> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, Kris Kennaway <kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> Subject: Re: Some thoughts on advocacy (was: Slashdot ftp.cdrom.com upgra Message-ID: <372CE5F6.9D9B0CBE@confusion.net> References: <XFMail.990502180056.jobaldwi@vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Not getting involved with the rest of this debate, but want to clarify something
about the way copyright law works. When I have the copyright on something, I do
pretty much what I want with it, since it's mine. If you want to use it, I tell
you what the conditions are on you using it. Those conditions go in license. I
give you the right to use it if you follow those conditions. A license doesn't put
me in any position, since the product is mine and I can do what I want with it. I
haven't agreed to terms in exchange for use of my own code, so if I give you two
choices of conditions (ie BSDL and GPL) then that's ok. Further, if I make one
version, then upgrade it, then decide to add a new choice of terms to the
distribution of this new version, that's ok. You can't sue me, since I haven't
agreed to keep it GPL, you have. I can sue you if you breech your contract with
me, but all my contract says is if u follow the terms I chose then you can use my
software.
>
>
> Actually, (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but if you release version 1.0
> under GPL, and use any of the 1.0 code in version 2.0 that you try to sell w/o
> the source, then anyone can sue you for the source code to version 2.0 because
> it would be a derivative of 1.0 and by the GPL that means the source to 2.0
> would have to be GPL'd and thus freely available, which prevents you from
> selling it, for all intents and purposes. It gets much worse when you have a
> large propietary product, such as your own OS specific to your application,
> and you want to add drivers for a newer network card. You wouldn't be able to
> use GPL'd code because you would screw yourself. You'd have to release the
> source code to your propietary OS, which your competitors would gladly take
> from you and sink you. OTOH, such a company can safely use BSL'd code without
> worrying about having to release the source to their competitors. And let's
> face it, not all software is going to be free, we do have to eat somehow. So
> we can't kill all possibility of selling software.
>
> ---
Laurence Berland, Stuyvesant HS Debate
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Windows 98: n.
useless extension to a minor patch release for
32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a
16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor,
written by a 2-bit company that can't stand for
1 bit of competition.
http://stuy.debate.net
icq #7434346 aol imer E1101
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?372CE5F6.9D9B0CBE>