BSD forums now censoring discussions related to BSD licence usage

[brosis]

Good... What you have mentioned is individuals (companies) using their freedom; you are free to use the code and contribute back. The code is there, and it is free. Nothing will change that.

Company is not an individual. There is no such thing as company freedom, company is a legal entity with clear agenda (business plan) with topmost goal of money making.
That the code is here doesn't mean its free. What about patents, what about license revoke, what about relicensing and actual protection of the freedom. The first two aspects are usually controlled by separate agreements (outside of BSD), thus BSD code gives you no right to run the code in itself.

If the code is published under open license, no company is limited to use it in how they see it fit.

If its not a backend development tool, library, parts bin or driver - then the market share will be given to the first with higher investment and faster reaction. Think Gates.

If it is a backend development tool, then the company distributing it is almost guaranteed uses proprietary frond-ends to gain the revenue. The BSD-licensed guts is nothing but a pet-project, shifted outside - but not set free. For example, the panels of server administration that make hosting and configuration easy - are all proprietary. The MacOSX - uses a lot of BSD guts, but its all proprietary. This is not free software, its a refracted proprietary.

If its a library, then this library is either promoting generic interface and aiming for maximum compatibility, or its copyright holders don't care where its gonna be used.
The driver case was explained above, they are not getting funds from driver itself, but from service and hardware sells.

All-in-all the code is open, do what you want, no obligations. But :
Unworthy code will be not touched by a company. It will sit slowly as a hobby project and depricate, or rise its worthiness.
If its a worthy code and fits within company agenda, they will think twice before contributing anything back due to the legal costs, unnecessity to do so (loose of time/money over unnecessary negotiations) and loose of competitive advantage. They will tend to keep the changes in best case, and expand/extinguish in the worst case. Even if its an interface, but widely popular, why not salt it with a few features and market it? Think 802.11n 150/300 mbit proprietary channel bindings implementations - they are not compatible with each other.
And if its worthy and they still develop and contribute back - then they have a reason to do so. They either produce proprietary frontends, plugins or similar, and the code in question is not their selling point. In fact, its barely usable to anyone except engineers.

Who do you think you are to tell me what freedom is? You might at least acknowledge that 'freedom' is a historically and fundamentally a tricky term. However, you choose to arbitrarily impose what you naively think freedom should be (or at least what is surely isn't).
You have got a lot to learn.

Lets just say, I use analytical thinking and observation to make full-faceted view on the subject. What should it be - freedom or anarchy. No tricky terms, no murky waters, no magic, freedom for the one means limitation of another.

For example, a law against slavery restricts my freedom to capture and work slaves, but preserves the freedom of all potential slaves. The GPL is analogous to a law preventing slavery(of the software). While it does indeed contain restrictions, those restrictions actually encourage more freedom, not less.
Say, is slavery as in "stripping the freedom" acceptable? In your model - it is. In my model - it is not. What you call freedom is in fact - anarchy. Has anarchy EVER been democratic?

Sure, everyone is free to decide what path to take. But the decision will have consequences. Your path is obviously not free software.

Have I missed anything?

[Sergio]

Company is not an individual. There is no such thing as company freedom, company is a legal entity with clear agenda (business plan) with topmost goal of money making.
That the code is here doesn't mean its free. What about patents, what about license revoke, what about relicensing and actual protection of the freedom. The first two aspects are usually controlled by separate agreements (outside of BSD), thus BSD code gives you no right to run the code in itself.

If the code is published under open license, no company is limited to use it in how they see it fit.

If its not a backend development tool, library, parts bin or driver - then the market share will be given to the first with higher investment and faster reaction. Think Gates.

If it is a backend development tool, then the company distributing it is almost guaranteed uses proprietary frond-ends to gain the revenue. The BSD-licensed guts is nothing but a pet-project, shifted outside - but not set free. For example, the panels of server administration that make hosting and configuration easy - are all proprietary. The MacOSX - uses a lot of BSD guts, but its all proprietary. This is not free software, its a refracted proprietary.

If its a library, then this library is either promoting generic interface and aiming for maximum compatibility, or its copyright holders don't care where its gonna be used.
The driver case was explained above, they are not getting funds from driver itself, but from service and hardware sells.

All-in-all the code is open, do what you want, no obligations. But :
Unworthy code will be not touched by a company. It will sit slowly as a hobby project and depricate, or rise its worthiness.
If its a worthy code and fits within company agenda, they will think twice before contributing anything back due to the legal costs, unnecessity to do so (loose of time/money over unnecessary negotiations) and loose of competitive advantage. They will tend to keep the changes in best case, and expand/extinguish in the worst case. Even if its an interface, but widely popular, why not salt it with a few features and market it? Think 802.11n 150/300 mbit proprietary channel bindings implementations - they are not compatible with each other.
And if its worthy and they still develop and contribute back - then they have a reason to do so. They either produce proprietary frontends, plugins or similar, and the code in question is not their selling point. In fact, its barely usable to anyone except engineers.



Lets just say, I use analytical thinking and observation to make full-faceted view on the subject. What should it be - freedom or anarchy. No tricky terms, no murky waters, no magic, freedom for the one means limitation of another.

For example, a law against slavery restricts my freedom to capture and work slaves, but preserves the freedom of all potential slaves. The GPL is analogous to a law preventing slavery(of the software). While it does indeed contain restrictions, those restrictions actually encourage more freedom, not less.
Say, is slavery as in "stripping the freedom" acceptable? In your model - it is. In my model - it is not. What you call freedom is in fact - anarchy. Has anarchy EVER been democratic?

Sure, everyone is free to decide what path to take. But the decision will have consequences. Your path is obviously not free software.

Have I missed anything?

You seem to VASTLY simplify what has been historically a serious philosophical issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

And that is just the Wikipedia entry (the tip of the icerberg). I really believe the subject to be EXTREMELY complex. As a matter of fact, I used to criticize strongly people who defended the GPL, but now I must simply get over the fact that they are just as 'right' as I am.

[brosis]

You seem to VASTLY simplify what has been historically a serious philosophical issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

And that is just the Wikipedia entry (the tip of the icerberg). I really believe the subject to be EXTREMELY complex. As a matter of fact, I used to criticize strongly people who defended the GPL, but now I must simply get over the fact that they are just as 'right' as I am.

Why to exalt this case to never practical philosophy?
GNU has long time precisely described its goals in protecting four freedoms.
The license is merely to protect these freedoms, nothing else.
Each new iteration of the license patches the exploits of these freedoms.

There are different levels of GPL (Affero, GPL, LGPL) that trade compatibility for freedom. Any project that abides these freedoms needs no compatibility, yet they provide it.
If the project author picked these licenses then he expected licensee to understand them and abide the license.

For example, almost all proprietary EULAs grant near zero freedoms, yet no one from BSD is revolting against them - because it would be like trying to extinguish flame with gasoline.

Sure you can write proprietary software using GPL, just don't touch the project on source level(LGPL), or touch it via standard communication ways, not via linking (GPL).
But the reason why one would write proprietary software (apart from malicious/pandora-box goals) are: get money for copies and retain control over the code base.

GPL does no forbid getting money for copies - it insists on getting paid for distribution, warranty and service; but code base control is problematic. But if broken down, this control is only pursued for a goal of achieving monopoly of excellence. A kick ass software, that offers huge bang for the buck, preferably with alternatives non-existent. Something like a water-trader. Think Microsoft. This is the core of monopolist undertaking and GPL disagrees here hugely, insisting on payment for actual useful improvement, rather than trading the possibility in itself (right/freedoms) to use/run/modify/adapt for money.

Am I criticizing BSD? No. They know what they do, and know what they bring.

[Sergio]

Why to exalt this case to never practical philosophy?

The problem is that you could perfectly argue that both provide freedom. However, you arbitrarily assert that BSD DOES NOT provide freedom, yet you resist on going to further philosophical grounds.
GNU's definition of freedom is completely arbitrary; they just state 4 'laws' that are subject to debate, just as any other definition of freedom.

You just can't say that GNU provides freedom and BSD does not. The best you can do is say tha GNU better mirrors what YOU think freedom should be (your own, personal and arbitrary definition of freedom).

[brosis]

The problem is that you could perfectly argue that both provide freedom. However, you arbitrarily assert that BSD DOES NOT provide freedom, yet you resist on going to further philosophical grounds.
GNU's definition of freedom is completely arbitrary; they just state 4 'laws' that are subject to debate, just as any other definition of freedom.

You just can't say that GNU provides freedom and BSD does not. The best you can do is say tha GNU better mirrors what YOU think freedom should be (your own, personal and arbitrary definition of freedom).

I am stating that.

BSD does not provide freedom.

Again, I urge you to point me of any "freedom" in BSD license.
BSD-like licenses provide non-persistent permissions to do that and that, but no freedom. Sublicense and all that permissions are gone.

If we apply BSD-like freedom to say US law, then it would be:
permission hereby granted to do what you want, and if you kill someone or strip this permission from him, don't tell him you did it on our behalf.

Is this a free society or an anarchic society?

Sure, GNU mirrors what I think of freedom. They contacted me telepathically and wrote the license according to my definition. They even host their site within my fridge.

[Sergio]

I am stating that.

BSD does not provide freedom.

Again, I urge you to point me of any "freedom" in BSD license.
BSD-like licenses provide non-persistent permissions to do that and that, but no freedom. Sublicense and all that permissions are gone.

If we apply BSD-like freedom to say US law, then it would be:
permission hereby granted to do what you want, and if you kill someone or strip this permission from him, don't tell him you did it on our behalf.

Is this a free society or an anarchic society?

Sure, GNU mirrors what I think of freedom. They contacted me telepathically and wrote the license according to my definition. They even host their site within my fridge.

You are just being deliberatelly silly... I've already explained that freedom is a controversial word; not only for GPL vs BSD, but historically and philosophically. I've pointed a link where you can delight yourself with this, including a broad division of how philosophy (different philosophical movements) treat freedom.

Now, you just naively write what ever it occurs to you in the moment, and pretend that to be a proof that GPL is free but not BSD (just because the license has the word free in it says absolutely nothing). You can go ahead and take that view, and never acknowledge the history and philosophy implied by the word freedom, but then you have no right to talk about freedom.

[beetreetime]

BSD is proprietary

You are just being deliberately silly...

Or Sergio here has no more arguments against brosis and is now trying to discredit brosis. Sergio is the one being deliberately silly... and retarded.

I've already explained that freedom is a controversial word; not only for GPL vs BSD, but historically and philosophically.

That's what all those who hate freedom (proprietary and BSD) say just to convince people that freedom should not be the focus of their habits. It's like saying generosity is a controversial thing.

I've pointed a link where you can delight yourself with this, including a broad division of how philosophy (different philosophical movements) treat freedom.

Where? Bullshit?

Now, you just naively write what ever it occurs to you in the moment, and pretend that to be a proof that GPL is free but not BSD (just because the license has the word free in it says absolutely nothing).

No, brosis is not being naively. Rather, Sergio here is in denial.

-Look at the GPL itself, it ensures that the code and all of it's derivatives are free to use, modify and redistribute without restrictions except demanding that the whole thing remains that way. In doing so, GPL propagates freedom.

-Look that the BSDL, it does not prevent closure of the source code and derivatives. At first, this might seem to a neutral stance in the fight against proprietary software but the fact that it allows proprietary derivatives means that it actually propagates proprietary (slavery).

You can even distribute an executable under the BSDL without the source code (a proprietary software under the BSDL). Therefore brosis' statement that BSD is open source not free/libre software is already too lenient on the BSDL. BSD is not Free/Libre nor is it Open. It's proprietary.

[Sergio]

BSD is proprietary



Or Sergio here has no more arguments against brosis and is now trying to discredit brosis. Sergio is the one being deliberately silly... and retarded.



That's what all those who hate freedom (proprietary and BSD) say just to convince people that freedom should not be the focus of their habits. It's like saying generosity is a controversial thing.



Where? Bullshit?



No, brosis is not being naively. Rather, Sergio here is in denial.

-Look at the GPL itself, it ensures that the code and all of it's derivatives are free to use, modify and redistribute without restrictions except demanding that the whole thing remains that way. In doing so, GPL propagates freedom.

-Look that the BSDL, it does not prevent closure of the source code and derivatives. At first, this might seem to a neutral stance in the fight against proprietary software but the fact that it allows proprietary derivatives means that it actually propagates proprietary (slavery).

You can even distribute an executable under the BSDL without the source code (a proprietary software under the BSDL). Therefore brosis' statement that BSD is open source not free/libre software is already too lenient on the BSDL. BSD is not Free/Libre nor is it Open. It's proprietary.

You are just pathetic... Go take care of your blog before the hackers strike again!

Just in case, here is (again) a bit of history/philosophy of freedom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[Rich Oliver]

GPL brings big disadvantages. It brings big advantages as well hence its success. Richard Stallman does not use a mobile phone. His idea of freedom is not the same as mine. In its early years the Free Software Foundation used proprietary software. Most firmware is still closed. Stalman's position seems to be that we can can use proprietary software when he says we can use it. Linux's penetration of the desktop is very limited. But for most people more and more of their computing data and processing happens on the server. The server probably runs on linux but does that really make the ordinary users free?

I can take GPL code modify and use it on my server to control people in all sorts of nefarious ways, but I'm under no compunction to release my source code. GPL is not a panacea.

[JX8p]

You are just pathetic... Go take care of your blog before the hackers strike again!

Just in case, here is (again) a bit of history/philosophy of freedom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Maybe if his blog were hosted on a BSD it wouldn't have been hacked.