If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
'Every' freedom? Now we've got various types of freedom?
Ok, here is what I think: Freedom is a strong and controvertial concept; obviously my 'ideals' of freedom will not be exactly the same as yours, or GNU's... I find it offensive that somebody arbitrarily tries to force a definition of freedom, be it the GNU or the BSD's. Personally I find the BSD's more close to what I think freedom should be, but I don't think I can force this to others.
So maybe we can agree that freedom should have limits (others might not agree). So why GNU's limits are PRECISELY those that freedom should impose? Sorry, I don't buy it...
I gather that, I was trying to make a point. I'm no lawyer but someone could make a framework that you could use that would preserve compatibility across several license types without sacrificing copyleft.
Hardly. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, due to GPLv2 having loopholes in it, but back in the day, before they were discovered, everyone would have agreed that GPLv2 preserved the freedoms.
Sometimes anarchy suits some projects better, look at sqlite and gameswf.
They do quite well and both projects release their work directly into the public domain.
I guess I should have been more specific, BSD(MIT, etc) licenses are fine for projects such as that... although I wish there was a simple one liner license that required you to release the source of code you borrowed if you modify it(and of course, nothing else). LGPL is similar but too legalese/long/infectious, I've never bothered to read through all of MPL. Shame.
Linus himself contributes a large amount of success of Linux to the GPL, and I think it's just(and I'm not even an RMSbot)
I have studied CDDL extensively and its not copyleft, its a BSD because it allows both dynamic and static linking to resulting executable; as well as includes very cloudly definition of intellectual property and patent revocation clause.
If one really respects freedom, one should limit own freedom to strip this exact freedom, which is what GPL does and CDDL & BSD do not.
This distinguishes anarchy from freedom.
BSD says that your only obligation is preserving/providing copyright + license notices. CDDL is "weak copyleft" like Firefox because source must be provided for direct derivatives (anything that includes source copied from CDDL software); if you were correct, why would "GPL + static linking exception" exist?
(Some of) the BSD developers say that if one really respects freedom, one respects the freedom of others to do as they will. I don't say that I agree with them, but I don't say I agree with you either.
You didn't prove me wrong, but I appreciate details you posted though, although I know every one of them. Lindows was just to pull off the money, until they succeeded, settled and renamed. Because of lack of point beyond, they halted. But I don't know if a parasite that attacks a predator is a good parasite or a bad parasite.. I am not good at entomology.
For your information, any parasite or predator that primarily attacks a pest is considered beneficial, and anything that attacks a beneficial species is considered a pest (as per my course in Economic Entomology). In agriculture, this usually means that predators are considered good, since the major pests are plant-eaters like aphids. But when you care about consumers, a predatory company is a pest, so a parasite attacking them would be considered beneficial (as long as they don't attack consumers as well).
@peppercats: "GPL is better than anarchy" is a pretty useless way of looking at things.
Looking at the state of uclibc, I see indications that GNU licenses may not always be different from anarchy.
Looking at sqlite, I see that PD software can avoid chaos.
Looking at Berkeley DB's Sleepycat license, I see that a fairly strong copyleft can be compatible with many licenses.
Reading the BSD license, I don't see how it qualifies as anarchy--it leaves more courses of action open, but it specifies terms that you must conform to.
And I don't think that "use GPL" is better than "use the license of your choice"--if a monoculture in software is bad because it's a monoculture, why is a single license good?
It reads more like a dysphemism, a strawman, or a false dilemma than a good argument, and I fail to see any interpretation for which I'd agree with the intended argument.
Now, I have to see how a debate over CDDL came up in the discussion of a GPL/LGPL-licensed Windows clone.
Takes one to know one? I, for one, don't hate Linux (or any OS, for that matter...), don't use any BSD on a regular basis (only once in a blue moon), and use any OS I am afforded provided it does what I need it to do. I try to support the OS that I like ((Arch)Linux), but that does not preclude me using another OS for whatever reason. Using any OS does not provide that OS any support whatsoever, unless you paid for it or are reporting bugs.