On 01/02/2013 07:30 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
From: Mark Woodward [mailto:[email protected]]
(talking about CDDL)
Well, I personally dislike the lack of freedom in the license and the
fact that I can't, according to the license, create a proper kernel
module. It has to be used as a FUSE system and that isn't acceptable.
I'll state up-front, that I am pro-GPL and I always have issue the GPL
isn't free arguments. Back in the 1800s the anti-slavery movement was
seen as an attack to the freedom of plantation owners to own slaves. The
freedom to take from others is not a freedom.
CDDL grants more freedom than GPL. That is why it's incompatible with GPL.
Because CDDL explicitly allows code developers to distribute their code under
other licenses, and keep some of it closed source if they want to. GPL
explicitly disallows that freedom, which is why CDDL is incompatible with GPL.
Yes, exactly, I write software I make it free to use and distribute, but
I do not make it something you can capture as your own and deny any
down-stream users of the same access to MY code that you got.
If you are a free software developer, developing under GPL, you are putting
restrictions on the way your code can be used by the recipient, and you are
opening the door for a 3rd party to sue the recipient on your behalf, without
any benefit to you. Such is the case (for example) with the FSF suing linksys
for incorporating busybox into their routers without notification to consumers.
The developers of busybox had nothing to do with the lawsuit, and did not
benefit from the lawsuit.
You are thinking about it as if it is a two party transaction which is
incorrect. It is an [n] party transaction chain where the originating
party wishes to preserve the rights of 1+n chain of down stream recipients.
Nothing in the GPL forbids you from selling a product created from GPL
source, have at it. If, however, you use someone's GPL free (as in
freedom) software and modify it, then you must respect the original
creators wishes and make your modifications GPL and publish them as
well. If you don't like the terms, make a capital investment and write
your own.
If you read the terms of L-GPL, the FSF goes off on a rant about how you
shouldn't grant such freedoms to the recipient, because the recipient can
profit from your freely distributed code, without benefitting you. They say
you should use GPL instead, which doesn't grant the recipient freedom to profit
from your free code. They neglect to mention that if you use GPL, then the FSF
can and will seek opportunity to profit from your code in the form of lawsuit
against the recipient, if the recipient is found to be in violation of any of
the GPL imposed restrictions.
You misunderstand the GPL. It is not a violation to sell a product based
on the GPL code. It is a violation to distribute code you acquired via
GPL as anything but GPL. The FSF is there to ensure that GPL is
enforceable. To use your example, the creators of busybox should have
gone after linksys themselves. Linksys should have published their
changes to busybox. It wasn't that Linksys used busybox, it was that
Linksys modified busybox and didn't publish their changes.
I acknowledge and understand that there are pros and cons of both licenses,
philosophically and materially. I'm not saying one license is better than
another, as a generalization; although in specific cases, each license can
sometimes be better than the other.
I don't agree with this. The GPL is the source of a HUGE amount of free
code to build on and learn from. It ensures that improvements get added
back. Software is a capital investment in time and effort. I'm a
capitalist and I take offense to a license that allows someone to take
my intellectual property that I have intentionally shared and deny
others the benefits I intend. That is theft.
I am saying the statement representing CDDL as a "lack of freedom" and bias in
favor of GPL on these grounds, is factually incorrect.
In the first transaction where I publish and you wish to use, there are
restrictions on you, this is true. However, my restrictions on you
preserve the freedoms of my code to those to whom you distribute. I
hardly call the principal that you have the "freedom" to deny others the
"freedom" you enjoy, a "freedom." If you don't like it, then make your
own capital investment and write your own software.
The GPL is more free than other licenses because it keeps you from
denying the freedom that allows you to succeed from others. The freedom
to deny freedom is not a freedom.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
