3 ms·

OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program? And it's not like BSD licenses l

OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program? And it's not like BSD licenses lack ways of encouraging contribution back either. I just don't see the choice between these licenses as important as quality of software and pace of development in ensuring customer freedom.

praptak 14y ago
> OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program? I assume that you mean officially GPL'd, not secretly incorporated by Cisco (although this type of abuse also gets detected.) GPLv3 forbids tivoization, so GP would definitely be better off with a router running GPL'd software. With BSD there is nothing preventing the hardware vendor from locking the software away from users.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I don't know about that. Let's say the router is running a GPL'd light-weight web server. Just because you can't lock the person out doesn't mean that the component may be effectively replaceable. Otherwise you could never effectively use any GPL v3 software in embedded devices unless you add additional update paths.
corford 14y ago
That's true. It would depend on how deeply (or not) any proprietary software within the blob was linked/derived from the GPL bits. But for encouraging contribution, if a company goes "rogue", the BSD has no real teeth to force them to give anything back. I largely agree with your last point though. Good old fashioned competition should normally be enough to ensure the user gets a good deal (providing regulators are doing their job and there are no cartels or monopolies).
- einhverfr 14y ago
  BSD contribution is based on a quid quo pro regarding future contributions. It is just more flexible in this than the GPL is. Consider PostgreSQL for example. Several of the main contributors also release proprietary versions. But they contribute to lower the costs of code maintenance.
  - corford 14y ago
    Correct but not exactly relevant to what we're talking about (i.e. a company going evil, at which point quid quo pro ceases to have much meaning). We're not talking about what's good for the developer here, we're talking about what's good for the user.
hammersend 14y ago
Well, the fact that you mention "tied together by a proprietary program" means you guys are talking about two different things. He's talking about BSD vs. GPL whereas you are talking about "something" vs. some GPL/proprietary hybrid. Seems something like a strawman to me.

praptak 14y ago

> OTOH, what's to stop Cisco's firmware blob from including all sorts of GPL'd software, died together by a proprietary program? I assume that you mean officially GPL'd, not secretly incorporated by Cisco (although this type of abuse also gets detected.) GPLv3 forbids tivoization, so GP would definitely be better off with a router running GPL'd software. With BSD there is nothing preventing the hardware vendor from locking the software away from users.

einhverfr 14y ago
I don't know about that. Let's say the router is running a GPL'd light-weight web server. Just because you can't lock the person out doesn't mean that the component may be effectively replaceable. Otherwise you could never effectively use any GPL v3 software in embedded devices unless you add additional update paths.

corford 14y ago

That's true. It would depend on how deeply (or not) any proprietary software within the blob was linked/derived from the GPL bits. But for encouraging contribution, if a company goes "rogue", the BSD has no real teeth to force them to give anything back. I largely agree with your last point though. Good old fashioned competition should normally be enough to ensure the user gets a good deal (providing regulators are doing their job and there are no cartels or monopolies).

einhverfr 14y ago
BSD contribution is based on a quid quo pro regarding future contributions. It is just more flexible in this than the GPL is. Consider PostgreSQL for example. Several of the main contributors also release proprietary versions. But they contribute to lower the costs of code maintenance.
- corford 14y ago
  Correct but not exactly relevant to what we're talking about (i.e. a company going evil, at which point quid quo pro ceases to have much meaning). We're not talking about what's good for the developer here, we're talking about what's good for the user.

hammersend 14y ago

Well, the fact that you mention "tied together by a proprietary program" means you guys are talking about two different things. He's talking about BSD vs. GPL whereas you are talking about "something" vs. some GPL/proprietary hybrid. Seems something like a strawman to me.