Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by leech View Post
    It is an interesting thought process. But I think the thing that makes more sense is that usually the people who use Linux at the core for embedded systems is because someone works there that is a Linux person and also suggested they provide a client. Just a guess, but it's because Linux users are far more 'community' driven due to the nature of the GPL, whereas BSD users are more "I get stuff for FREE!" type of people.

    That's really what makes the most sense to me.
    This seems significantly disjoint with my observations. Most Linux users I know don't care at ALL about the GPL or free (as in free speech) software; they only care that Linux is free (as in free beer) -- though they do seem to form strong community ties, as you have stated. On the other hand, the subset of Linux users I've encountered who are GPL-aware are generally antagonistic and exist outside of any major community, preferring instead to sit on the sidelines harassing people for using Ubuntu. I don't think I can honestly make any assertions regarding BSD-types, since I've only ever met them here on Phoronix, but I don't think it makes any sense for a user to prefer BSD over Linux for the sake of "free stuff." Maybe that logic holds for a corporation, but not on an individual or personal level.

    Comment


    • #17
      The GPL is no different to the Patriot Act - taking away your rights and freedoms with weak justifications based on outside "threats".

      Take the usual Patriot Act/NSA/TSA shill justifications and replace all occurrence of the term "terrorists" with proprietary and bam, you just wrote the GPL.

      The GPL is a crime against humanity - anyone that says otherwise is a anti-freedom slut.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Truth View Post
        The GPL is no different to the Patriot Act - taking away your rights and freedoms with weak justifications based on outside "threats".

        Take the usual Patriot Act/NSA/TSA shill justifications and replace all occurrence of the term "terrorists" with proprietary and bam, you just wrote the GPL.

        The GPL is a crime against humanity - anyone that says otherwise is a anti-freedom slut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Kite View Post
          This seems significantly disjoint with my observations. Most Linux users I know don't care at ALL about the GPL or free (as in free speech) software; they only care that Linux is free (as in free beer) -- though they do seem to form strong community ties, as you have stated. On the other hand, the subset of Linux users I've encountered who are GPL-aware are generally antagonistic and exist outside of any major community, preferring instead to sit on the sidelines harassing people for using Ubuntu.
          Oh so true indeed.

          Originally posted by Kite View Post
          I don't think I can honestly make any assertions regarding BSD-types, since I've only ever met them here on Phoronix, but I don't think it makes any sense for a user to prefer BSD over Linux for the sake of "free stuff."
          I don't think it makes any sense for a user to use BSD over Linux at all, at least not at its current state. I was trying out PC-BSD 10 just yesterday on a machine with an ancient Radeon 3XXX series card which is 'supposed' to be supported, but all I got was a lovely, shiny black screen with nothing on it for me to check my face with.

          If users want a BSD-based operating system I'd much rather they take the OS X route. At least that OS actually, like, you know, works. And conforms to the Single UNIX Specification.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Kite View Post
            This seems significantly disjoint with my observations. Most Linux users I know don't care at ALL about the GPL or free (as in free speech) software; they only care that Linux is free (as in free beer) -- though they do seem to form strong community ties, as you have stated. On the other hand, the subset of Linux users I've encountered who are GPL-aware are generally antagonistic and exist outside of any major community, preferring instead to sit on the sidelines harassing people for using Ubuntu. I don't think I can honestly make any assertions regarding BSD-types, since I've only ever met them here on Phoronix, but I don't think it makes any sense for a user to prefer BSD over Linux for the sake of "free stuff." Maybe that logic holds for a corporation, but not on an individual or personal level.
            Sadly, the reasoning behind harassing Ubuntu users is because they are indeed the ones who only use Ubuntu Linux (not any others) because it is free to download, and rarely do they actually give anything back to the community. I used to fully support Ubuntu until a few years ago when it'd randomly have issues that other Linux distributions wouldn't. It's become much like OpenSuse where if you start to add outside repositories, everything breaks. Or just simple updates break things they shouldn't.

            But most DEVELOPERS, which is what I'm referring to, are going to be keenly aware of the GPL license if they're porting / developing their software with Linux. I know it sounds elitist, but basically Ubuntu brings mostly a group of morons into the community. But then most of the true morons leave Ubuntu and go back to Windows. Some end up learning enough to go onto more advanced/stable distributions.

            I do find it funny that a guy I worked with for a short time kept telling me that Ubuntu was developed as a 'Hacker's distribution.' I told him that nope, I saw the original mailing list posts announcing Ubuntu from Mark Shuttleworth, and he had clearly stated his goals were to make a Debian based release with a 6-month schedule, and always have the latest Gnome. The third goal was to make it easy to install to hope to get some market share from Microsoft. None of these have anything to do with making a 'Hacker distribution' so I have no idea where he got that from. If anything the 'hacker' ones would be something like Fedora (for hacking on new code / features for RHEL), Arch (or really any of the rolling releases, since you'll have to hack away at the OS to a certain extent to get it running correctly) and/or the other definition of 'hacker' which would be ones like KaliOS. Ubuntu has, and will always be the 'user friendly desktop replacement' distribution. Well, okay, maybe not always, seems like they're going for Mobile as well. They haven't even especially targeted the server.

            Honestly, if someone created a preseed file for Debian that has a plymouth bootup, an easy installer for nvidia/fglrx, and enable contrib, non-free and backports by default, and enable sudo, then you'd have the equivalent of Ubuntu LTS, but with much more stable base.

            This is way off topic, my apologies. I do always find the GPL vs BSD arguments interesting. I look at them this way, GPL is for the user's freedom. BSD is for developer freedom. By this I mean that with GPL, the user gets source code and can distribute the source code as well as binaries. With BSD, the developer can take that source code and release just binaries, or binaries and source. That's probably the simplest that I can describe them.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Truth View Post
              The GPL is no different to the Patriot Act - taking away your rights and freedoms with weak justifications based on outside "threats".

              Take the usual Patriot Act/NSA/TSA shill justifications and replace all occurrence of the term "terrorists" with proprietary and bam, you just wrote the GPL.

              The GPL is a crime against humanity - anyone that says otherwise is a anti-freedom slut.
              Patriot Act/NSA/TSA attack backdoors exist to major degree thanks to BSD-licensed software that is released as binary only on consumer devices , with backdoors in place and backwards incompatibility to use prior original BSD versions => this IS proprietary software.

              This is impossible with GPL.

              True lies.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                Several questions here:
                - How does the license of the kernel impact the support of userland programs?
                With more GPL software the platform portability of software strongly increases.

                Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                - Are these IPTV software GPL licensed?
                Mostly no, but some are opensource. They create a connection socket for each registrant with IP checks on server side.
                They would be GPL licensed, if LGPL would not exist, and LGPL exists explicitly due to FSF backing up to cries of proprietary code writers.

                Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                - Are steam games GPL licensed?
                They can be, it depends on publisher, not on distributor.

                Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                - Is there more obligation to release userland code on linux compared to BSD?
                Userland is outside of Kernelland in both ecosystems.

                Originally posted by erendorn View Post
                - Windows is proprietary and has more support of games. Does it means that proprietary brings more freedom than GPL?
                Windows has more support of games NOT because its proprietary, but because of its criminal gain of monopoly and sustained marketshare due to illegal agreements with OEMs, hardware manufacturers, distribution channels and library/API programmers.

                There was proprietary BeOS with technically much better structure, but lack of criminal marketing and distribution activity. Where is it now?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by leech View Post
                  I look at them this way, GPL is for the user's freedom. BSD is for developer freedom. By this I mean that with GPL, the user gets source code and can distribute the source code as well as binaries. With BSD, the developer can take that source code and release just binaries, or binaries and source. That's probably the simplest that I can describe them.
                  That's imprecise view.

                  BSD's only additional "feature" is an option to remove that freedom, that some define as "more freedom", confusing freedom with anarchy (do what you want).

                  The user is a person that recieves a code from the copyright owner(distributor), which distributes it under BSD license.
                  As BSD license gives less restrictions (that carry explicitly towards persistence of granted freedom) to the user, BSD gives more (it does not, as of below) for user's freedom than GPL. However:
                  if that user becomes further distributor, the BSD lack of freedom persistence means hardly those freedoms will survive to 3rd party.
                  Also, BSD does not grant license over patents that might cover the licensed work unlike GPL.

                  GPL has persistent freedoms. BSD has simple freedoms.
                  GPL freedoms stretch from distributor over user towards 3rd party.
                  BSD freedoms end with 1st user, because of an ability to sublicense and not distribute the source.

                  Thus BSD is nothing but a strongly cut-down GPL, but for that goal - Public Domain is more anarchistic than BSD.

                  So, if one wants to do anything and have no obligations, releasing in public domain is much better than BSD.
                  If one desires to have obligation of freedom sustainability, then GPL is better.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    That's actually pretty much what I meant. Meaning that the GPL enforces that whichever 'user' it is, they get the source code, ensuring they have the freedom to do with that source code what they wish, as long as when they hand it off to another user, they also hand off the source code.

                    BSD is 'freedom' for the developer, where they can take the source code, modify it, create their own program, and only distribute binaries, so the end user doesn't get the same freedom as the developer.

                    I thought I summed it up quite well.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by leech View Post
                      That's actually pretty much what I meant. Meaning that the GPL enforces that whichever 'user' it is, they get the source code, ensuring they have the freedom to do with that source code what they wish, as long as when they hand it off to another user, they also hand off the source code.

                      BSD is 'freedom' for the developer, where they can take the source code, modify it, create their own program, and only distribute binaries, so the end user doesn't get the same freedom as the developer.

                      I thought I summed it up quite well.
                      Today users are usually prosumers, not consumers.
                      Your definition of user forgets that user can be developer (does not mean to be coder, but thing about designer, artist, modder).
                      GPL does not limit itself if source code, but includes patenting, trade marks, exceptions, distribution of both binary and source (whole different conditions apply here).
                      This jeopardizes your concept. If you want a TLDR version of my post above it is:

                      GPL gives sustainable four freedoms.
                      BSD gives simple freedom to use just the source code.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I meant 'user' as a distribution channel, not as a consumer. For example, Debian would be the user in this, as would any users of Debian. Even if you are referring to 'user' being the consumer, they still get the same rights from the GPL as anyone else. So if they feel the need to download the code and play with it, then they can.

                        That's all semantics.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by brosis View Post
                          That's imprecise view.

                          BSD's only additional "feature" is an option to remove that freedom, that some define as "more freedom", confusing freedom with anarchy (do what you want).

                          The user is a person that recieves a code from the copyright owner(distributor), which distributes it under BSD license.
                          As BSD license gives less restrictions (that carry explicitly towards persistence of granted freedom) to the user, BSD gives more (it does not, as of below) for user's freedom than GPL. However:
                          if that user becomes further distributor, the BSD lack of freedom persistence means hardly those freedoms will survive to 3rd party.
                          Also, BSD does not grant license over patents that might cover the licensed work unlike GPL.

                          GPL has persistent freedoms. BSD has simple freedoms.
                          GPL freedoms stretch from distributor over user towards 3rd party.
                          BSD freedoms end with 1st user, because of an ability to sublicense and not distribute the source.

                          Thus BSD is nothing but a strongly cut-down GPL, but for that goal - Public Domain is more anarchistic than BSD.

                          So, if one wants to do anything and have no obligations, releasing in public domain is much better than BSD.
                          If one desires to have obligation of freedom sustainability, then GPL is better.
                          That's no more precise. The additional feature is that developers can choose their own license/terms over their own works. That's very different than removing freedoms. I think that's especially crucial for software libraries (e.g. why should basic functionality like SVD from GSL force the rest of my software to be under the GPL?).

                          BSD and similar licenses force author acknowledgement and include a no-warranty/as-is clause that protects authors from damages resulting from their code. I'm not sure Public Domain extends those protections.

                          In the end, the license is up to the developer.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by nslay View Post
                            That's no more precise.
                            Yes, it is. Shifting everything towards developer-user paradigm is not accurate.
                            GPL only operates with terms "you" (as in "licensee", "recipient" that may be "individual or organization"), and "copyright holder", and ensures four freedoms are passed along. Hence its persistent license.
                            BSD is not persistent, as all rights can be easily waived by sub licensing or by not releasing any source, hence omitting the copyright entirely.

                            GPL is also court accepted and saw action.
                            BSD on the other hand was never enforced in court. Heck, it does not even have termination paragraph.

                            Originally posted by nslay View Post
                            The additional feature is that developers can choose their own license/terms over their own works. That's very different than removing freedoms. I think that's especially crucial for software libraries (e.g. why should basic functionality like SVD from GSL force the rest of my software to be under the GPL?).
                            1) Paragraph 7 of GPL3 explicitly allows developers to specify own conditions.
                            2) Copyright owner always has the possibility to re-license to anything he wants. GPL does not hinder that.
                            3) If rest of software uses GPL-licensed software, then, just like anything else, it should abide by its terms. There is special question why would you want different license from GPL. You want to use free libre software, but you don't want to follow its license. Then write your own version and use different license.

                            Originally posted by nslay View Post
                            BSD and similar licenses force author acknowledgement and include a no-warranty/as-is clause that protects authors from damages resulting from their code. I'm not sure Public Domain extends those protections.
                            Author acknowledgment that hardly takes place, especially if software is changed, especially if its relicensed, especially when its released as binary only.
                            Public domain includes no no-warranty clause, as author releases the copyright work into public domain, he can't he hold liable per definition.
                            Still, some countries do not accept work without author, this is why people use copyright waivers with some sort of no-warranty clause, but its basically - same.

                            With BSD he retains copyright for the bleak spot of getting "acknowledgment", hence he needs disclaimers explicitly.

                            Originally posted by nslay View Post
                            In the end, the license is up to the developer.
                            The license is up to copyright holder.
                            Who pays for the junket, controls it. In majority of cases, its not developer.
                            And when its developer, his primary goal is to be either paid, have freedom to change or both.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              Yes, it is. Shifting everything towards developer-user paradigm is not accurate.
                              GPL only operates with terms "you" (as in "licensee", "recipient" that may be "individual or organization"), and "copyright holder", and ensures four freedoms are passed along. Hence its persistent license.
                              BSD is not persistent, as all rights can be easily waived by sub licensing or by not releasing any source, hence omitting the copyright entirely.
                              What? BSD explicitly states that the copyright notice must be retained whether distributed in source or binary form, modified or not.


                              GPL is also court accepted and saw action.
                              BSD on the other hand was never enforced in court. Heck, it does not even have termination paragraph.
                              So let's exclude BSD and all other untested OSI approved licenses because GPL saw action?



                              1) Paragraph 7 of GPL3 explicitly allows developers to specify own conditions.
                              2) Copyright owner always has the possibility to re-license to anything he wants. GPL does not hinder that.
                              3) If rest of software uses GPL-licensed software, then, just like anything else, it should abide by its terms. There is special question why would you want different license from GPL. You want to use free libre software, but you don't want to follow its license. Then write your own version and use different license.
                              I apologize for lack of clarity, but I was referring to linking (hence the SVD example). That's the big spat over copyleft licenses (duh). BSD licenses do not extend the terms and conditions (the few that there are) of the BSD license to works linking with the BSD licensed work.


                              Author acknowledgment that hardly takes place, especially if software is changed, especially if its relicensed, especially when its released as binary only.
                              So the terms of the BSD license are violated.

                              Public domain includes no no-warranty clause, as author releases the copyright work into public domain, he can't he hold liable per definition.
                              Still, some countries do not accept work without author, this is why people use copyright waivers with some sort of no-warranty clause, but its basically - same.
                              I'm no lawyer; however, my impression is that by placing a work in public domain, you simply disclaim the copyright. How does this prevent someone from suing you for damages done by your work?

                              With BSD he retains copyright for the bleak spot of getting "acknowledgment", hence he needs disclaimers explicitly.
                              Acknowledgement is very important (licenses aside). Haven't you ever been given a cookie?

                              Your statement was that the only additional feature of the BSD license is to remove freedom. Obvious bias toward GPL aside, I would say BSD lacks features. It can be mixed with other source under different licenses and it doesn't have side effects (like automatically extending its terms to other source). As a developer, I can appreciate that (especially for software libraries). And it should go without saying that the original work licensed under BSD remains open regardless of whether modifications are contributed or kept private.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X