Choosing an open source license (NewsForge) [LWN.net]

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 2:38 UTC (Tue) by Kope (guest, #21434)
In reply to: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge) by andrel
Parent article: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

I'd argue that the BSD is a fairly important open source license as well -- and is arguably more "free" than the GPL in that a BSD licensed product may be taken and made closed source if the user so desires. In a BSD license, the user is free to do what they want. In a GPL license a user is free to do what RMS wants.

(Log in to post comments)

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 5:26 UTC (Tue) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

Oh no. It's arguably silly argument: why do developers have to care of some stinky users -- I mean exactly those who seek to "make closed source" out of free software?

You're mixing up my freedom to walk the street at night and robber's "feedom" to approach me and gently/harshly get me ripped.

So *please* don't repeat that horrible nonsense evaporating from uneducated and self-proud BSD (sub)circles -- heck, a child gets it better than seemingly smart people these days! :-(

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Linux/FSF/RMS addict (rather user of the product/works/concepts) -- I'm just so bored with folks who can see only one level through when the next one is so obvious but still spreading this FUD...

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 12:09 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

In a GPL license a user is free to do what RMS wants.

If that's the case, why does the GPL explicitly state that "it places NO restrictions on the end user, indeed it is irrelevant to the end user"? (my paraphrase, but RMS's intention and meaning)

Cheers
Wol

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 16:29 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

The GPL permits a very profitable business model that RMS does not approve of: dual GPL/proprietary licensing. That is, a user of a library can accept the GPL or else pay money for the privilege of using the code in proprietary software. TrollTech, the makers of QT, have become a profitable company based on this model.

dual license model is "rms ok"

Posted Jul 27, 2004 17:44 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

RMS approves of the dual license business model. But Trolltech only use that model for *some* (most?) of their software. Some of their software is exclusively proprietary.

Sorry I can't provide the reference, I'm running out the door as I write this. I think he spoke of this in a previous LWN.net interview. In the interview he endorsed both the MySQL and the Trolltech models, but in a follow up he clarified that hadn't known that the trolltech model was different to the MySQL one, and he retracted his endorsement.

dual license model is "rms ok"

Posted Jul 28, 2004 4:06 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Nope. He reluctantly accepts it as useful, but he believes that proprietary software is always wrong (I disagree with him on that).

if you need the reference:

Posted Jul 28, 2004 13:58 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

RMS says: ``I think it is acceptable to do what MySQL AB and TrollTech do: release under the GPL, but sell alternative licenses permitting proprietary extensions to their code. My understanding is that all the code they release is available as free software, which means they do not develop any proprietary softwre; that's why their practice is acceptable.''

Below that paragraph is: ``(Footnote: RMS added later: "I later learned that TrollTech does develop proprietary software. I apologize for having mentioned it erroneously.")''

Choosing an open source license (NewsForge)

Posted Jul 27, 2004 21:34 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Oooh... not again...

If you'll count "freedoms" then GPL is actually offer one very important freedom to use: ability to combine.

Basically both BSD and GPL encourage forks - and that's good things in short term. It's good to see Inkscape go in different direction from Sodipodi and it's good to have FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD diversity.

But! Over time with BSD-originated code all you can see are endless forks and branches - very few large-scale fusions. The only way to fuse something is to induce large scale riot when X/MIT (or BSD) license freedom is used (think about X11R6 and later XFree86 history if you need sample). With GPL fusions are trivial: when it's feasible to fuse/or borrow code you are always free to do so - no need for large-scale campaigns or active license patrols (yes, you always need to check code you fuse borrow but with BSD-originated projects you also need to track changes in licenses and act not when you really need to fuse/change something but way in advance - when this or that subtle change in licensing makes future fusions impossible.

So balanse is following:
BSD: the end user gets "right to screw" - executed countless times and almost always with disastrous results (X11R6, Xfree86, countless local *BSD dialects without support and wirthout sources, routers with forever unpatched security holes and so on; sometimes a lot of pressure from end-users prevented wide-spread harm, sometimes not)
GPL: the end user gets "right to combine" - executed countless times as well and always with good results for end user since even if end-user is not active programmer there are others who can do programming for him (Sveasoft's ROM for WRT54G, a lot of different ROMs for Zaurus and so on)

So with X/MIT (or BSD) you exchange valuable (for end-user) right for other right - mostly useless for end-user (who, after all, is end user and not interested in software reselling) and usefull really only for quick bucks of middleman...

Now please explain to me once more how exchange of valuable freedom with other useless one gave me more freedom as result. I can not see how but may be it's just me?