Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:09:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Karlson <karlj000@unbc.ca> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL nonsense: time to stop Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112190048271.29122-100000@ugrad.unbc.ca> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011218095233.028ea920@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Okay then, I'm curious to see EXACTLY which things need to be "corrected" > >in your view. I'm not interested in the GPL-non-GPL debate > You should be. Being truly free for all uses is the essence of the > BSDs and one of their key strengths. Okay, then let me rephrase that. I'm not interested in getting into the goodness/badness of the GPL right now. I do have preferences (which tend to lean against the GPL), and I do care about this particular OS and it's licensing. I am sort-of following this thread, and the stuff about components already being GPL caught my eye. > Stallman & Co. would LOVE to see this vital "edge" disappear. So long > as there is apathy and a lack of awareness of the GPL's dangers, the > BSDs are in danger of being assimilated into the GNU Empire. I like to think that I have an understanding of the differences between the licenses, I have read them. I do agree that the BSD license is more free, GPL is a virus, blah, blah. (We've heard them all before.) I am not apathetic to such a cause, and I think that working to make this system "pure" (core stuff) is a noble cause. I don't pretend, to be an expert on every part of this OS and what comes from where. > First and foremost: drivers and kernel modules must be un-GNUed. (See > /usr/src/sys/gnu.) This may mean rewriting some of them and/or getting them > properly relicensed. I'm not a kernel hacker, and there's no way I could do anything in here. > Next, we move to the userland. The GPLed stuff here is in /usr/src/gnu and > /usr/src/contrib. (Note that in the latter case GPLed software is intermingled > with non-GPLed software, contrary to claims that it has been isolated.) > Fortunately, there are non-GPLed versions of many of the utilities to be > found in the source trees of the other BSDs -- OpenBSD in particular. A few > items will need to be rewritten, but not many. What keeps some of these from being "theived" from OpenBSD? Just that someone hasn't gotten around to it? > The parts that will take the longest to reimplement properly -- it will > be a multi-year effort to remove them -- are the toolchain. FreeBSD should > never have become dependent upon the GNU tools, because the FSF owns them > lock, stock and barrel. The FSF can, at any time, restrict the use or > distribution of these tools. (I believe that it is Richard Stallman's plan I agree that it would be nice to have our own stuff. But realistically, whose got the time (or the energy, or the desire, ...) to rewrite something like GCC? I'm not as set against using of tools. IANAL (this phrase should be in the dictionary, it gets used so often), but I don't believe that RMS could (or would) change licenses on software that has been released. We could snag a copy of GCC before the "license change" and just continue on with it under the GPL. Isn't that the point of the GPL - to restrict the ability of someone to do something proprietary, even if it is Stallman himself? > to wait until GCC wipes out most or all commercial C compilers and then > require that all output of the compiler be licensed under the GPL. He FUD. No way. I'm sure that he wants to do this, but even the Linux users would be up in arms over this one. There would be code forks like you've never seen, and there would be new tools written. > be able to. If he does, the projects most at risk are the BSDs. (Bruce How are we at any more of a risk than anyone else? And you don't think that other compilers (such as DJGPP, or something) would change their license and be ported? GCC is not, and will not, be the only compiler out there. > Perens has already stated that he wants "Version 3" of the GPL to limit > the use of the output of GPLed programs. It's just a matter of waiting > until the community's head is fully inserted into the noose.) We must begin > planning now for this development, to which the FSF's agenda and > Stallman's malice against commercial developers (or anything -- including > the BSDs -- that offers them aid and comfort) will inevitably and > inexorably lead. I mean this in the nicest possible way - you're paranoid. :-) I agree that non-reliance is ideal... Who doesn't want to stand on their own? But it's not entirely feasible. It's easy to see that the BSDs don't have the combined manpower of Linux and the popularity of the GPL. We have to make due with what we have. I might be willing to "step up to the plate" to rewrite some userland programs, and I'm probably not alone. Of course, I expect that the ones that need to be rewritten are the "tough" ones and probably require a lot of work. Anyway, I'm sorry I got involved in this, because I appear to have brought this conversation full-circle to the beginning as it was apparently starting to wind down... Sorry, all. :-) -- Jeremy The difference between legal separation and divorce is that legal separation gives the man time to hide his money. 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?Pine.LNX.4.21.0112190048271.29122-100000>