Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:32:34 -0500 (EST) From: jsd@jdyson.com To: flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org (Miguel Mendez) Cc: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <200411011532.iA1FWY5s004173@dyson.jdyson.com> In-Reply-To: <20041031105926.4f06b06f.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> from Miguel Mendez at "Oct 31, 2004 10:59:26 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Miguel Mendez said: > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:36:42 -0700 > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: > > Guys, > > > 95% of the GPL advocates out there don't know the first damn thing > > about the GPL and undoubtedly have never completely read through > > the thing, MUCH LESS have read the supporting philosophy and writing > > around it. I see GPL bigots ALL THE TIME arguing about how great > > GPL code is and how the GPL is so all fired wonderful because of this > > and that which isn't even IN the damn license!!! > > I don't know if you're aware of this, but this kind is *useless* > discussion has been going on on the mailing lists for *years*. Check > groups.google.com and you'll see that everything you might want to add > about GPL vs BSD has already been said a hundred times. John Dyson > posted a lot about it, then Brett Glass did for a while, and now you. > > If the time wasted on these rants had gone into writing software we'd > have a 100% BSDL system today. My very humble suggestion is that you > please take this somewhere else. I've never seen a GPL advocate 'see the > light' and start licensing his software under the BSD license after > having a conversation with a BSD 'zealot', or vice versa. > I don't believe that it is useless to keep the awareness of the licnese differences alive. Just recently, my new boss asked me some questions about GPL encumberance -- and being an honest person (always), and not acting as an advocate, I had to explain that the GPL wouldn't hurt us in the specific case that he asked about. I also told him that we did have to be aware of the ramifications of the GPL, and I'll keep my eyes open for troubles. On the other hand, making the typical, incorrect assumptions about the GPL, based upon the spin about it being a license of 'free' software, a company and (employees) can get into trouble. This fact is proven by the historical 'gotcha' behaviors of the GPL crowd against certain developments. As long as ALL of the rhetoric and spin about the GPL is ignored, and the license is treated like any other restrictive license, where every word and phrase is carefully understood, then the GPL can be a useful license of useful software. Treating GPLed works as free to use and reuse, especially by add-on software developers, can be dangerous. Treating GPLed works as software that has a long and important to read/understand license, that is a plan for success (or at worst, minimized failure.) On the other hand, the BSD licenses can be used as licenses of free software, and common sense WRT the term 'free' does apply here. The issue of GPL advocacy or BSD advocacy is probably dead -- because you won't change the whole value systems of an individual in the discussion. However, when using the licenses, it is important to fully understand the ramifications -- no matter if someone is GPL religious, BSD religious or agnostic (like me.) Like most people, my own 'hot button' is when I am lied to. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200411011532.iA1FWY5s004173>