Sebastien Carlier wrote:
So, you are indeed taking the point of view that there is "good freedom"
and "bad freedom", and that coercion is needed to allow "good freedom"
to prevail. I am glad you said so since it is totally related to what
follows.
Total freedom without coercion is anarchy.
By adopting a copyright and a license BSD has rejected anarchy and
accepted the coercive force of the law. Repeatedly there have been
cries on this list to force the Linux/GPL developers into complying
with the BSD License.
The BSD License defines obeying copyright law, complying with the
license and crediting the
original authors as acceptable restrictions on one's freedoms.
Failing to preserve a copyright/license/credit is a BSD example of a
"Bad Freedom"
The only distinction between a BSD License and the GPL is the
author's view of
which freedoms are good and which are bad.
If you are really claiming that BSD Licenses offer "total freedom",
make's no distinctions between the values of different freedoms,
and is completely non-coercive then why are BSD developers upset over
The Atheros HAL ?
The anger is because more freedom has been taken than your license
offered.
You can not have total freedom absent coercion, and copyright's and
licenses.
They are incompatible.
--
Dave Lynch DLA Systems
Software Development: Embedded Linux
717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net
fax: 1.253.369.9244 Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too
numerous to list.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of
genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
Albert Einstein
