Forgive my etiquete, please. Since I'm certainly not answering any
questions, I felt it appropriate to take this off of questions. Is that
good form, or have I put the proverbial foot in mouth?
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:47:14 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/25/04 4:21:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-- big snip --
The lack of foresight of the GPL is that, if Jupiter had no choice but
to
give away their work, then the work never would have been done, so even
people willing to pay for it wouldn't have it.
The GPL vs BSD issue is like liberal vs conservative.
I agree-ish. However, I would say that conservative implies (loosely)
remaining the same, which is to say, supporting institutions or
traditions already in place.
On the other hand, liberal, in this case, would mean the opposite:
unbound by tradition. (liberal also, of course, is anti-authoritarian)
Both licences seem to be liberal, then, in that they break from
traditional licencing. Look deeper, though, and you see that the BSD
licence allows further development without restriction, while the GPL
licence imposes its own tradition, as best it can, in perpetuity.
The liberal plaform
sounds
good and reasonable to those who don't understand the bigger picture.
This was the comment to which I had to reply. I know the GPL/BSD argument
has been had over and over again. Is GPL free-er or is BSD free-er,
etc. And, although I did bring it up, I'm sorry :P I must point out,
though, that I always considered the BSD licence to be the most liberal
available. Also, I find it insulting to think that by following a liberal
platform, I'm missing the bigger picture. In fact, I feel that by
following the *conservative* GPL licence, many are missing the bigger
picture: if you attempt to exert any sort of authority over things (code,
furniture, land, people) you will propigate the notion that authority over
those things is an acceptable one. By truly relinquishing control over the
things, you are allowing freedom, as an ideology and practice, to gain
momentum--not to mention, being quite liberal.
-snip-
FreeBSD is a perfect example of a thriving project with BSD licensing. Is
FreeBSD
a dead end? Is the community worse off because companies like Cayote
Point
and
Emerging Technologies don't give the source to their products? No,
because
those
products never would have been created if they were hindered by the GPL.
Absolutely. And maybe, after existing for decades and gaining more and
more market share, and, therefore, economic value, these companies will
decide that BSDing their code: is *not* financial suicide, will spur
innovation, allows them to improve their product cheaply and quickly,
improves securit, on on, and so, they will. Instead of forcing the
licence on these companies, as the GPL would've done, the BSD licence, and
the success of BSD/Open Source projects, is simply showing the way. If
that's not a liberal idea, what is?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
