Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 18 Apr 2020 09:31:30 -0400
From:      Aryeh Friedman <>
To:        Ralf Mardorf <>
Cc:        FreeBSD Mailing List <>
Subject:   Re: freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <20200418092801.20d10f5b@archlinux>
References:  <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20200418092801.20d10f5b@archlinux>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 3:28 AM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:50:09 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> >And here goes the *ABSOLUTE* reason why no developer who ever hopes to
> >make any money at all from their work should *EVER* use GPL.
> You were already proven wrong! Let alone that you are defeated by a
> naive miscalculation.

Every so called attempt to prove me wrong proved to be strawmen so please
explain again the proof in a way that is not easy to show has at least one
or more wholes in it.

Business models based on secret recipes don't grant to earn money. Even
> without "reverse engineering"/" disassembling" the idea could be
> taken over.

Nor do business models that force you to make every last trade secret free
for anyone to use.   I don't know if your American or not but in the US the
Constitution specifically protects the ability to keep exclusive rights to
your work for a reasonable amount of time: "To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)

Thus I suspect if push came to shove in a legal fight about the legality of
GPL forcing third parties that just happen to use a GPL'ed project to give
up all claims over how their work is used would likely unconstitutional.
FSF knows this and that is why they highly recommends you to assign all
intellectual property rights to FSF and/or the original author.

And in some cases the users of the program *DEMAND* that you can not open
source it for example one clause of the contract for developing the cardiac
system I mentioned is we are not allowed to do any work (directly or
indirectly) for any other cardiac related medical lab/service.   Thus if
any part of our work was GPL then I guarantee the client would sue the
pants off of us.   This means for example using linsucks is completely out
the question for more then just technical reasons.

> I don't clame that the GPL is better (or less good) as MIT, BSD or what
> ever else licenses. I only claim that you are spreading misinformation.

If anything you are the one spreading misinformation based on a half
informed knowledge of what the actual license says and the official
interpretation of it's meaning (the GPL FAQ).   I have spent over more then
5 years attempting to find a way to make GPL compatible with commercial
work (including several hours of paid consulting with an intellectual
property attorney), the only possible way is to dual license it (something
GPL at least on the surface forbids).   Where is BSD requires no such
morally dishonest gymnastics since it is not viral.

> There are reasons for different licenses, so it's important to
> understand those reasons. The problem you have got is, that you don't
> understand anything at all.

>From what you have said (and easily disproven) I wonder who has the
understanding problem.

> Note, the world is not divided into Communists and Capitalists, or
> into idiots and people who know objective facts.

The world is divided into the have's and have not's no matter how you want
to phrase is and the simple fact of the matter is viral licenses (like GPL)
re-enforce this while claiming to break out of this division.  GPL is only
suitable for people who don't need to worry about where their next meal is
coming from (i.e. those who are subsitized by large organizations/user
bases of that do not derive any direct living from their GPL'ed project).
  So please stop telling people the only possible way to be moral is to
give up the ability to make a living in their chosen field (I do not see
how that could be called moral by any definition).

> Since you don't understand the reasons and consequences of the
> different open source licenses, you might want to take a look at the
> Creative Commons, since it explains an open minded worldview beyond
> your Communist-Capitalist-idiots-misinterpreted-objective-facts
> crap. To some extend it also fits to open source software licensing.
> Broadly speaking the Creative Commons is spread into =E2=80=9CApproved fo=
r Free
> Cultural Works=E2=80=9D and not =E2=80=9CApproved for Free Cultural Works=
=E2=80=9D licensing.

I suspect you have never been at risk of being homeless.   I have and while
in some ivory tower giving away your work is morally superior then
associating with the evil word: money.   I wonder what your landlord or the
local grocery would tell you if you told them that because you do GPL work
you will pay them in karma?

> Programmers as well as artist could earn enough money to make a living
> from work, that is also available for free as in beer.

Have fun explaining that your landlord!

> Some programmers
> and artists even don't want to make money at all with their software or
> artwork. However, programmers or artists are free to strike out on
> their own. Users are free to do the same.
> We have the freedom of choice. The pitfall of this freedom is, that it's
> annoying to care about all the details

If you really care about freedom of choice why are you defending a license
that takes that freedom away from you?

As for myself, my life is to short to even read all end-user licence
> agreements, let alone to entirely understand those I read. If a
> programmer wants to sell software, the business model could be to
> provide easy to understand end-user licence agreements, that give users
> advantages and a free open source code, that gives advantages to
> competitors.

And thats why I use BSD it is easy to understand but does not forbid
anything that makes it possible to make a living.

> For artists there is the CreativeCommons, it's a construction kit. For
> coders there are different FLOSS licenses, all with their pros and
> cons. If you remove the different names of those FLOSS licenses, you
> could consider it a construction kit, too, comparable to the
> CreativeCommons construction kit.

OSD sets some minimum requirements for FOSS all of which make impossible to
make a living while using a viral license.

Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer,

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>