Presence of innovation also does not mean its academic. Academic = supported by academic instance such as university.
2) Earlier point invalidated. I am not an extremist either, but I see closed source as enemy, because it inserts a lot of blackboxes requiring one-sided trust. Trust is a weakness. That means, closed source is much lower quality from my perspective, but it is not so criminal that it should be prohibited.
3) GPL protection = freedom protection. BSD = no protection, only advertizement = value of something written on public wall. If someone dislikes 1st, but likes 2nd so much that he carries a migration, that one clearly does not want freedom protected. Single goal - they want to relicence it later, and thus invalidate BSD license anyway. Call Apple as I requested earlier on opinion about GPL. The answer will be "GPL is too limiting (... freedom to relicence, ie remove original license)". There are no other exceptions. This happened by BSD folks themselves, so BSD is favoring anti-free. With BSD license stripped, there is no BSD - only EULA. With GPL, there is GPL and hence its conditions (freedoms) further apply. Fact.
BSD goal was to support companies, but not *any companies*, rather closed source companies.
Because, otherway they would use GPL to actually stand behind their advertized freedoms.***
1) they dont
2) they cooperate A LOT with Apple
*** Single possible exception would be "We don't care enough to switch".
With recent migration from GPLv3 to BSD for everything, they have invalidated this point.
Simple short licenses are *the* source of trouble, because they are not detailed and can be bent the way one sees fit.
Ask any lawyer!
GPL license is detailed, lacks excessive complexity and had maintained general direction since its first version: "To advertize and to protect four freedoms".
Note 2: Copyleft does not prevent proprietary companies to use its code. Copyleft prevents them to lock that specific code up.
Note 3: 'Copycenter' hence is worthless
Note 4: In 2012, the 'copycenter' will not work due to patents. Copying anything as in "putting fire with more gasoline" does not work anymore, as gasoline becomes patented.
Note 5: Even in 1999 Berkley's 'copycenter' was inefficient and underpowered due to n1&2, with even its supporters fighting for a few copies in order to just lock them down.
You associated freedom with anarchy and continue to do so even after multiple corrections. This is your second lie.
Licenses are constructed in a way, to be understood completely and unambiguously. Your interpretations of "TO ME" or "TO EVERYONE" do not matter - this is your third lie. Even every sane country has constitution, first declarations of which protect freedom. And NOT anarchy.
Linus made a mistake by using "GPL2" instead of recommended "GPL2 or later" and is now unable to gather all approvals for all the contributions in order to replace that with "GPLv3" or later". GPL stayed inline with the policy, by patching an exploit that prevented to use the four freedoms, so its perfectly fine to accept "GPL2 or later", even copyright assignments would be excessive as they introduce much bigger exploit, allowing to relicense all the code under *any* license.
And invalidation is not valid, because every human research is emotional. Humans tend to *strive* for goals. I doubt robots do the research in Berkley. And if one simply wants to publish an invention, one does declarative publication under public domain. Why BSD license? My understanding is that BSD license allows copyright declaration, which is lucrative if one seeks a company to monetize the development and has his copyright mentioned everywhere. The further development is then taken into EULA and original project either aborted (pre 2000) or completely forbidden to use and develop (post 2000 due to patenting).
GNU goal was to create guaranteed freedom operating system. Even today, they pursue the goal with Hurd, as Linux has accepted blobs in kernel; just like all xBSD. Yes, ofc Linux can be built without blobs as well as xBSD, but the difference is that GNU does not accept *any* closed source components within operating system limits, protecting from worked the AT&T exploit. In userspace, one can run whatever he wants; in kernelspace currently, if Nvidia strips its binary driver, Linux is left without any full-featured graphics stack. There are no binding agreements between Linux Foundation and Nvidia to my knowledge and I am sure there *are* agreements between Microsoft and Nvidia for that matter, although very likely subject to NDA. The goal of GNU was to write an OS that can't be broken or taken back all of the sudden, and thus they are on the right track.
If you dislike the license - do not use it.
If you do not understand the license - read their FAQ and ask them questions.
They have kept their line since version 1.0 of the license, that is "guarantee of availability of the four freedoms". Incremented license revisions just added more details and patched the exploits, ie improved fitness of the license to match the goals. Nothing more.
Linus is a living person, so he may have own opinion on topic, which does not qualify to be true. For example, he gave Nvidia a finger for refusing to opensource their graphics blob (which is paared only with Nvidia cards) while stating he is not a gamer (ie user of this case).
Specifically, in the article:
GNU: updated license patched known exploit that prevented use of four freedoms. Stayed true to its vector.
Linus: called that "doesn't match what I think"(1), stated ".. is morally"(2), stated "I think..."(3), stated "it is okay to control people's hardware"(4), stated "religious fanatics"(5), stated "... and totalitarian states"(6).
(1)&(3) - invalid, because subjective opinion. Requires objectively formulated policy instead.
(2) - invalid word in scope of jurisdiction, this word belongs to religion and is subjective.
(4)&(6) - self-excluding and self-contradicting
(5) - applied to (2) makes Linus himself religious fanatic. Without application, does not belong to jurisdictional scope - laws are not prayers, lawyers are not religious fanatics.
What Linus do is to damage himself. GPL guarantees four freedoms and seeks basement in local laws, local laws may require censorship of content for children. GPLv3 will hence have no power, trying to allow children utilize four freedoms in order to watch 18+ movie. So, Linus should not worry about GPLv3 as his children will be safe and will not be able to sue him.
If someone appears or acts, this condition is broken as he will bring own agenda favouring something over another.
Anarchy is incompatible with any life form, but is good for raw base material.
Torvalds disagreement is because he is indirectly payed by TiVO, who earn money selling devices, that exploit GPL, invalidating granted freedoms.
GPL backfired patching the case, Torvalds sobed. Instead, he should have developed the way to sell the devices in question, without breaking user rights. He should have seen it and not cooperated with both the robbers and the police.
Presence of innovation is precisely what academy is all about... that is what research really is, and that is what was going on with BSD Unix with support from DARPA; they were doing research, i.e innovating. GNU has never been academic.
2) Point keeps valid; BSD was born as a research project, while GNU was born as an anti-proprietary project.
Now, let me ask you something. When you fly a plain, do you ask the engineers for the 'source code' of the plane? do you ask civil engineers for the 'source code' of the building you live at? do you ask your car manufacturer for the 'source code' of the car your life depends on? So, why is software so special?
3) As I said, if BSD is favoring anti-free (assuming this is true, based on what you think freedom should be), this is only a side effect; as pointed earlier, BSD and its whole licensing comes from academy and the interest for giving a free Unix to the world. I value all the efforts from the BSD folks, unlike you. Now, I don't believe BSD is favoring anti-free, because I believe that BSD gives you the 'freedom' to decide what ultimately freedom means to you. No, I don't think it is anarchy.
Therefore you are the closest to lying; you are making assumptions you shouldn't.
Again, BSD represents freedom to me, while GPL represents absolutism, totalitarism, etc. I don't care if GPL contains the word 'freedom' in it.
I think that, as academics, they were primarily interested in innovation; they were doing top-class research for DOD. Obviously there were different times, and you have to acknowledge this. They probably wanted their work to be free, but weren't interested in licensing or political issues; they were too busy doing research. But to say that while doing research they were thinking about helping (non-yet existant) proprietary companies, and thinking about how they could be more anti-free is just lame, EXTREMELY lame.
"Freedom is ability to do things unrestricted. Using this freedom to restrict the freedom = remove freedom is anti-freedom act."
I think this is a valid proposition, although it is debatable. First, if freedom really is the ability to do things unrestricted, and given that what you call "freedom remove" is not fundamentally different from doing any other thing, according to your definition, removing freedom is part of your freedom. This, of course, assuming that freedom indeed is what you claim, which I doubt.
Now, you must consider the following: a BSD-licensed software IS FREE; it is there and will always be there, independent of a company taking it to do some closed work. So, where is the freedom taken away, if the original code is (and will always be) available? What the company is doing is making use of the freedom of the code to make their own closed-source product, but that, in no way, removes the freedom (availability, if you wish), of the original code.
Same goes for BSD: Don't like it, don't use it.
I don't believe in the so called "four freedoms", so I don't believe GPL aims for freedom.
Now, if your answer to any disagreement about this is "then you are an anarchist", you are just applying the same totalitarism/absolutism as FSF/Stallman, hence you are far from knowing what freedom really
No, it is not; I pursue freedom.
Again, I do not defend anarchy.
So let's see here, the otherwise-unknown art of text buffer management that emacs brought to the table, ALL of the work on gcc, the innovations in bash, guile's advances in dynamic language design, these things are not research??? Remember that all this stuff happened back in the 80's when Apple IIs were the desktop computer and MS-DOS was "state of the art".
And GNU has never been academic? Are you talking about the project that was started in a university research laboratory? The project that was nutured for many years by a tenured college professor? The project which employs mostly college students to do the grunt work? The project whose results are used for research and education all over the globe? This project has NEVER been academic?
WOW and you expect anyone to take you seriously?
anybody who thinks that gnu was not doing "research" they are clearly delusional
why don't you go back to 1986. Get yourself a nice sized text file, say a megabyte or two. Yeah, it's WAY bigger than your machine's available physical memory, back in 1986. Now I would like you to try to open and edit this document with ANY text editor program that was available in 1986.
you will find to your vast chagrin that emacs will be the ONLY editor that will edit this file that is bigger than your physical memory. tell us more about gnu does no research.
When I say research I mean: first, the purpose of the project and second, effectively the research-level things its development brought.
If GNU started at the University it doesn't necessarilly imply it was conceived for academic purposes; indeed it was not.
Rewriting user-space tools and a kernel isn't research either, even if done by students. Linux is also used as base system for doing research. This doesn't mean Linux is an academic project. The same goes for GNU.
But BSD was the system that connected to world; this was possible due to research.
If you consider the "innovations in bash" a research-level project, do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
I am talking about BUFFER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE which was NOT AVAILABLE in editors like VI at the time. If you tried to use vi to edit a file bigger than RAM, it would just FAIL with an out-of-memory error BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VIRTUAL MEMORY!!! However emacs was VERY CLEVER in this reduced memory situation and could edit this file.
By the way, I LOVE how you assume that virtual memory was everywhere in 1986! Back in that time, virtual memory was not considered to be a real solution to anything at all. In order to have virtual memory you needed to purchase additional hardware that cost even more than the CPU and used more power than the CPU. It inserted wait states into your memory fetch cycles and it slowed your computer way down. Virtual memory was considered to be the "lazy way out" for people who were too stupid to fix their software.
Back in those days of 4 MHz processors and 250 ns memory cycle times, you needed lots of cleverness and RESEARCH if you wanted your program to run in any kind of sane manner. You couldn't just wait until next year and buy a faster machine, progress was much slower then.
Last edited by frantaylor; 02-12-2013 at 04:33 PM.
How thick are you...
Any way, I admire and value what the GNU folks have accomplished, but my point was that the GNU system wasn't meant to be a research-level system; its purpose was to provide a free Unix. Ok, so they did interesting things, maybe I wouldn't call that research, maybe you would. But in that respect, BSD and GNU were fundamentally different in that BSD was born as a research system.
Last edited by Sergio; 02-12-2013 at 04:36 PM.
I have in front of me at the moment, a copy of the famous "Chine Nual", dated 1984. The preface to this document is the VERY FIRST PUBLIC MENTION of the gnu project:the GNU system wasn't meant to be a research-level system
"I believe that the commercialization of computer software has harmed the spirit which enabled such systems to be developed. Now I am attempting to build a software-sharing movement to revive that spirit from near oblivion"
WHAT is the "spirit" that develops systems??? It is RESEARCH! HELLO! What else is it?
and DO YOU SEE YOUR ERROR? You see GNU as a software project. It's NOT a software project. It's a project to invigorate software design. It's a project to get people thinking, to stir their brain cells and be better. YOU think it's about the software.
And by the way, WHAT DO YOU THINK HURD IS FOR, ANYWAY?? Do you REALLY think the developers have any intention of "shipping a software product"??? Hurd is a learning experience, it's a RESEARCH PROJECT, it's a sandbox for new ideas and experiments. It spins off ideas like FUSE that get integrated into other things.
Last edited by frantaylor; 02-12-2013 at 05:01 PM.