Is that so? Let me present what I consider a sane argument against the so-called "permissive" license then and I'd be interested if you consider it sane too or hear your counter-arguments.
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
[quote]The so called "permissive" licenses enable anybody to take those freedoms away. So only someone who doesn't believe those freedoms are essential can advocate for it as he doesn't mind them being taken away. It means little that he himself perhaps doesn't take them away directly (albeit he could at any moment change his mind) but "just" enables anyone else to do so - there is no significant difference there.[quote]
You can make a privative fork of the original source code, and that's correct ... but you can't take the freedom of the original source code away.
if OpenSolaris was BSD licensed, even in that case Oracle would face the impossibility to "close" the original source code ... and threaten the community to stop the work that today continues on IllumOS
To clarify, I use to see the CDDL (which is the IllumOS license) as some intermediate point between GPL and BSD.
CDDL requires the source modifications to be open (like the GPL for example) and we still have no notice from Oracle last time I checked ... same thing happened to other GPL projects that were work-arounded and subverted in privative enviroments.
I don't like to repeat arguments, so I'll quote this article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05...rs_and_takers/
Tell me what you think of it. Thanks !
With GPL the community gets all the innovation stemming from it and building on top of it, there is no situation where some entity can take the code away, add some polish and never contribute back - if you want to build upon the thousands/millions of hours others spent improving the code that you get for free, it's only fair you contribute back any modifications you make. And this model works great for Linux, on the other hand maybe that's why BSD is being left behind, there is no such balance in "permissive" land - anyone who wants to "invest" in it can just take the code and never contribute back - that doesn't work long term either for BSD or the ones forking it into proprietary products (but they keep trying - and failing wasting valuable coding effort that could be used to improve the underlying system for all).
And the company that sells it, is getting cute ammounts of money (ffmpeg used to have a "wall of shame" for those infractors, and replay converter was there sitting a loooong time )
Again, I invite you to read that article.
The best testament to this is indeed the contrast between the adoption of BSD vs. Linux - copyleft works, it works great - if you're looking for long term benefit that is, it doesn't work for short-sighted entities who want to take away the essential freedoms it provides for the shot-term "benefit" of being able to monopolize their contribution.
So two interrelated arguments:
1) "permissive" licenses do not protect the 4 freedoms that are essential to benefit the users and long term innovation (the next point)
2) copyleft provides long term innovation vs. short-term benefits of "permissive" licenses such as BSD which hinder innovation in the long term
So two interrelated arguments:
1) "permissive" licenses do not protect the 4 freedoms that are essential to benefit the users and long term innovation (the next point)
2) copyleft provides long term innovation vs. short-term benefits of "permissive" licenses such as BSD which hinder innovation in the long term
If Google goes badass overnight with Chromium, we could take the code and keep it as a community project as some examples we had. Google can not take away the freedom of BSD licensed code (except for a patent-trojanized code that should be cleaned up... but GPLv2 doesn't cover that too )
note: why do I keep putting "permissive" in quotation marks? It's because I consider it grossly misleading - the only thing it "permits" you to do is to take away freedom from others - so in effect it "permits" you to restrict others. I do not consider a permission to restrict others a permission at all - it's power, power over others, not permission...
Relicensing LLVM/Clang under GPLv3 is exactly that and people should be happy that it gets exercised (why would they include it otherwise), yet you refer to it as "ripping it off" and we all know that is without doubt as many in the "permissive" camp would actually feel like. But why? Because the whole so called "permissive" charade is about making things "corporate friendly" - which means eliminating the 4 freedoms so they can monopolize their contribution and take away control from the users - it has nothing to do with software freedom. If you relicense to protect those freedoms they're not going to like you very much - funny that, isn't it
P.S → I'll answer the non-philosophical post when I get back from dinner ♥
Comment