3 ms·

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 othe

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.
- davidmathers 17y ago
  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. Only strange because you're framing the issue with individualism. The GPL was created by a socialist and values social freedom more highly than individual freedom. The two ideas of freedom are always in contention. Like the freedom to swing your fist wherever you like vs the freedom from getting hit in the face by random people. BSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty GPL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
  - apotheon 17y ago
    I have no idea where you stand on the issue of which is the more "important" definition of freedom, but the way you frame the issue is pretty much spot-on (especially since it perfectly mirrors my own take on the difference, and reinforces my thoughts on what's actually "more free" in both political and software senses of the term).

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.
davidmathers 17y ago
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. Only strange because you're framing the issue with individualism. The GPL was created by a socialist and values social freedom more highly than individual freedom. The two ideas of freedom are always in contention. Like the freedom to swing your fist wherever you like vs the freedom from getting hit in the face by random people. BSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty GPL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
- apotheon 17y ago
  I have no idea where you stand on the issue of which is the more "important" definition of freedom, but the way you frame the issue is pretty much spot-on (especially since it perfectly mirrors my own take on the difference, and reinforces my thoughts on what's actually "more free" in both political and software senses of the term).