Fractious BSDers [LWN.net]

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 15:37 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
In reply to: Fractious BSDers by jzbiciak
Parent article: The case of the unwelcome attribution

It is their usual attitude: Linux (and other GPL software) is not really free because you don't have the basic freedom of turning it proprietary. But then when people take their code proprietary (or GPL) they complain loudly. Is it inconsistent? Not really; granting you the freedom to do something doesn't mean you think it is right to actually do it, at least in their view.

In a sense they are right. The GPL does not grant the freedom to go proprietary because of a conscious choice: it is a compromise. I think Stallman's way of thinking is more solid. First define the freedoms you think are desirable, then go for them, and try to avoid unsocial attitudes in the process.

The BSD approach works well for certain kinds of code. You can see the same arguments in Apache land (although they tend to be more polite), and their libraries are usually top quality. In other places it does not work so well, and OpenBSD seems to be one of bad ones.

Let me close this inane message with the inevitable cheap analogy. BSD is like a protestant religion: you are free to do as you wish, even if some actions are frowned upon (and others plainly wrong). GPL takes an approach more similar to Catholicism: it acknowledges human weakness and tries to help us stay away from them, while working with our strengths. And if still you sin, Father Moglen will approach you and let you confess your sins, and repent. While the protestants will condemn you to eternal Hell for having sinned; you have crossed the chasm and there is no way back. Which is indeed what we see in this case.

(Log in to post comments)

Fractious BSDers

Posted Sep 20, 2007 16:29 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]

Yeah, I've always thought the dichotomy of how Linux is treated vs. how Microsoft is treated wrt. to BSD software was schizophrenic at best.

If you take a look at MS's initial set of TCP/IP tools, they're all the BSD tools. Sure, buried somewhere in all their documentation etc. is a copyright notice for the BSD stuff. "Yay, our name in Flyspec-3 lights! Woo!" But have you seen any of the updated source code? "Who cares, our name in lights! Who cares if it's on the back page of a manual nobody will look at, or buried in a README nobody will open? THEY KEPT OUR COPYRIGHT MESSAGE! YES! Viva la freedom!" *sigh*

So, we goof on the copyright message but leave the code and its changes out in the open. "Bad Linux. You messed up our copyright message. And we don't like your dual license. What if Microsoft wants a copy? You owe it to us to let them copy it again. At least they print our copyright message." "Dude... wait, what?"

I personally agree with you that Stallman's position is more consistent. "I will your give you this code with some restrictions. The restrictions are merely that whatever rights I grant you are transitive: I give you the code with certain rights and responsibilities. All I require is that you do the same for the next guy." Makes sense to me. You lose the right to hoard, in exchange for the generosity of others.

Eh, I think we're both preaching to the choir here.