Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

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

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    106

    Default

    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.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,038

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •