4 ms·

I think this is bizarre as well -- to not complain about the company that uses BSD code as part of the most closed OS in common use today, but get all uppity wh

by keyist 17y ago

I think this is bizarre as well -- to not complain about the company that uses BSD code as part of the most closed OS in common use today, but get all uppity when someone decides to go GPL. I figure the most plausible reason for this inconsistency is this: the GPL code is that much more tangible -- it can be read and used, just not distributed the way they'd like. Versus BSD code used in proprietary software whose code is completely inaccessible. GPL gets the flak because code released under it feels more within reach.

ubernostrum 17y ago
Well, I look at it as an argument over what "free" and/or "open" mean. Suppose Alice releases some code under the BSD license, and Bob releases some code under the GPL. Both of them can claim that their code is "free" and "open" and other wonderful adjectives. But Bob can incorporate Alice's code without making any changes to his license terms, while Alice would have to change her license terms in order to incorporate Bob's code. Thus, to Bob, Alice's code is "free" and "open". But to Alice, Bob's code isn't -- from her point of view she can only use Bob's code if she accepts restrictions on modification and distribution. And so Alice -- regardless of whether it's objectively right to do so -- probably ends up feeling that Bob's putting one over on her when he says his code is "free". In other words, it's not about someone saying "I chose this permissive license and now I'm upset that other people abused my code", it's about someone saying "that other dude claims his software is 'free' but it doesn't look that way from where I'm standing".
- adharmad 17y ago
  But Alice did release her code under BSD...........so she should not really care what Bob does with her. After all, she does not care what Apple, Google or other do with it. So in this a case of double standards by Alice?
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    No, I think you skipped the last paragraph of my comment. It's not about how other people use BSD code; it's about the word "free", and the feeling that "you can modify and distribute this only if you accept my terms and restrictions" is perhaps a strange definition of that word.
    - vlisivka 17y ago
      If humans are "free", why I cannot capture them and sell as slaves? Are they really "free"? Word "free" has lot of meanings in English language. In my native language, word "free" in context of BSD licensed code should be translated as "svoboda" (fully unrestricted state of something), and in context of GPL licensed code as "volya" (has it own rights, abilities, goals, like free human).
      - randrews 17y ago
        I think this is the best description of free-beer versus free-speech I've ever read. Thank you.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        I think that falls apart when you realize that, by using a license identical to the GPL but with all instances of "GPL" replaced by some other term (say, "RCL" for "really cool license"), the code distributed under each license is unusable in projects using the other license. Where's the freedom to cross-pollinate?
    - thras 17y ago
      So, your post can be summed up by: BSD people don't think that the GNU people should use the word "free." Uh, yeah.
      - apotheon 17y ago
        I guess GNU people are perfectly welcome to use the word "free", but they should stop acting like they're using "free" in some manner that makes the recipient of the code more "free" than less restrictive licenses.
- ianb 17y ago
  "Bob can incorporate Alice's code without making any changes to his license terms, while Alice would have to change her license terms in order to incorporate Bob's code" This is an inaccurate way of describing what happens. It buys into an incorrect idea of "GPL as virus". Alice's code remains Alice's, regardless of whether she incorporates Bob's code. Her licensing is unchanged. The combined work has to be distributed according to all licenses that make up that work. That includes the BSD and the GPL licenses. Because the BSD requirements are effectively a subset of the GPLs, and there is no incompatibility between the requirements (i.e., BSD is GPL-compatible), then it's as though everything was under the GPL. But Alice is free to deincorporate Bob's code, and everything is as it was.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    The very text you quoted was talking about Alice's ability to make use of Bob's "free" code. Were you not reading what you quoted? Consider this, also, when thinking about which is "more free": Which person's code can be used with code that is distributed under a different copyleft license? Which looks "more free" to the person (perhaps Charlene) who wrote the code under that third license?
- chewie 17y ago
  Those restrictions are intended to preserve others' freedom while cutting individual freedom. That's a Social Contract: we agree to apply some restrictions on our individual freedom to ensure that, overall, freedom stands high. If Alice lives in a society where murder is permitted, and Bob doesn't, Alice may feel she is "free" whereas Bob is not. From her point of view she can go live with Bob only if she accepts restrictions on what she can do. But Alice is missing the fact that by exercising her right to murder she is depriving others of their rights. And what if Alice herself gets murdered? How "free" would that leave her? Defining concepts basing ourselves on "points of view" or "feelings" is pseudoscientific, leads to contradictions and is completely useless. So no, I don't think one should decide how free she is by merely substracting the number of things she is allowed to do from the number of things someone else is allowed to do. I'd try to grasp the big picture and figure out which set of rules will lead to a higher number of free and happy people.
  - apotheon 17y ago
    That's absurd. Murder? Seriously? Are you really comparing the ability to use code with fewer restrictions with "murder"? Is "murder" the new "Nazi" or something? edit: . . . and I'd like to see your statistical evidence for the GPL actually resulting in "more free and happy people". I think the BSD License is a great and subtle fishhook for pulling people into the world of free and open source software, whereas the GPL is a gigantic barbed hook the size of my head with blood and gore dripping off it (at least in the eyes of many businesses), so obvious in its intent and the difficulty of getting unhooked after taking a nibble that many of them may never give it a chance. In short, I'm not convinced that the GPL helps. Maybe it results in a marginally higher rate of return among those who use the code. Maybe. Then again, maybe it also results in fewer people using the code, and maybe overall that results in a lower rate of return. 50% of 100 isn't as much as 20% of 1000, after all.
    - SterlingCamden 17y ago
      I never use GPL'd code in any of my projects, because I publish code under a copyfree license (http://owl.apotheon.org http://owl.apotheon.org). My code often gets reused in proprietary software for resale -- and I'm happy with that, but the GPL simply cannot exist there.

by keyist 17y ago

ubernostrum 17y ago

Well, I look at it as an argument over what "free" and/or "open" mean. Suppose Alice releases some code under the BSD license, and Bob releases some code under the GPL. Both of them can claim that their code is "free" and "open" and other wonderful adjectives. But Bob can incorporate Alice's code without making any changes to his license terms, while Alice would have to change her license terms in order to incorporate Bob's code. Thus, to Bob, Alice's code is "free" and "open". But to Alice, Bob's code isn't -- from her point of view she can only use Bob's code if she accepts restrictions on modification and distribution. And so Alice -- regardless of whether it's objectively right to do so -- probably ends up feeling that Bob's putting one over on her when he says his code is "free". In other words, it's not about someone saying "I chose this permissive license and now I'm upset that other people abused my code", it's about someone saying "that other dude claims his software is 'free' but it doesn't look that way from where I'm standing".

adharmad 17y ago
But Alice did release her code under BSD...........so she should not really care what Bob does with her. After all, she does not care what Apple, Google or other do with it. So in this a case of double standards by Alice?
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  No, I think you skipped the last paragraph of my comment. It's not about how other people use BSD code; it's about the word "free", and the feeling that "you can modify and distribute this only if you accept my terms and restrictions" is perhaps a strange definition of that word.
  - vlisivka 17y ago
    If humans are "free", why I cannot capture them and sell as slaves? Are they really "free"? Word "free" has lot of meanings in English language. In my native language, word "free" in context of BSD licensed code should be translated as "svoboda" (fully unrestricted state of something), and in context of GPL licensed code as "volya" (has it own rights, abilities, goals, like free human).
    - randrews 17y ago
      I think this is the best description of free-beer versus free-speech I've ever read. Thank you.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      I think that falls apart when you realize that, by using a license identical to the GPL but with all instances of "GPL" replaced by some other term (say, "RCL" for "really cool license"), the code distributed under each license is unusable in projects using the other license. Where's the freedom to cross-pollinate?
  - thras 17y ago
    So, your post can be summed up by: BSD people don't think that the GNU people should use the word "free." Uh, yeah.
    - apotheon 17y ago
      I guess GNU people are perfectly welcome to use the word "free", but they should stop acting like they're using "free" in some manner that makes the recipient of the code more "free" than less restrictive licenses.
ianb 17y ago
"Bob can incorporate Alice's code without making any changes to his license terms, while Alice would have to change her license terms in order to incorporate Bob's code" This is an inaccurate way of describing what happens. It buys into an incorrect idea of "GPL as virus". Alice's code remains Alice's, regardless of whether she incorporates Bob's code. Her licensing is unchanged. The combined work has to be distributed according to all licenses that make up that work. That includes the BSD and the GPL licenses. Because the BSD requirements are effectively a subset of the GPLs, and there is no incompatibility between the requirements (i.e., BSD is GPL-compatible), then it's as though everything was under the GPL. But Alice is free to deincorporate Bob's code, and everything is as it was.
- apotheon 17y ago
  The very text you quoted was talking about Alice's ability to make use of Bob's "free" code. Were you not reading what you quoted? Consider this, also, when thinking about which is "more free": Which person's code can be used with code that is distributed under a different copyleft license? Which looks "more free" to the person (perhaps Charlene) who wrote the code under that third license?
chewie 17y ago
Those restrictions are intended to preserve others' freedom while cutting individual freedom. That's a Social Contract: we agree to apply some restrictions on our individual freedom to ensure that, overall, freedom stands high. If Alice lives in a society where murder is permitted, and Bob doesn't, Alice may feel she is "free" whereas Bob is not. From her point of view she can go live with Bob only if she accepts restrictions on what she can do. But Alice is missing the fact that by exercising her right to murder she is depriving others of their rights. And what if Alice herself gets murdered? How "free" would that leave her? Defining concepts basing ourselves on "points of view" or "feelings" is pseudoscientific, leads to contradictions and is completely useless. So no, I don't think one should decide how free she is by merely substracting the number of things she is allowed to do from the number of things someone else is allowed to do. I'd try to grasp the big picture and figure out which set of rules will lead to a higher number of free and happy people.
- apotheon 17y ago
  That's absurd. Murder? Seriously? Are you really comparing the ability to use code with fewer restrictions with "murder"? Is "murder" the new "Nazi" or something? edit: . . . and I'd like to see your statistical evidence for the GPL actually resulting in "more free and happy people". I think the BSD License is a great and subtle fishhook for pulling people into the world of free and open source software, whereas the GPL is a gigantic barbed hook the size of my head with blood and gore dripping off it (at least in the eyes of many businesses), so obvious in its intent and the difficulty of getting unhooked after taking a nibble that many of them may never give it a chance. In short, I'm not convinced that the GPL helps. Maybe it results in a marginally higher rate of return among those who use the code. Maybe. Then again, maybe it also results in fewer people using the code, and maybe overall that results in a lower rate of return. 50% of 100 isn't as much as 20% of 1000, after all.
  - SterlingCamden 17y ago
    I never use GPL'd code in any of my projects, because I publish code under a copyfree license (http://owl.apotheon.org http://owl.apotheon.org). My code often gets reused in proprietary software for resale -- and I'm happy with that, but the GPL simply cannot exist there.