Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux 3.2 Kernel May Be Of A Worrying Size

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    I've seen much more people complain about code being GPL than BSD, the reason being "why don't you let me use your code? Don't you want your software to be free?"
    Of course you will see more people complain about a restrictive license. One could argue that any restrictive license is more about egos as it is trying to push its agenda and is judgmental of others that do not share like philosophies.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
      Of course you will see more people complain about a restrictive license. One could argue that any restrictive license is more about egos as it is trying to push its agenda and is judgmental of others that do not share like philosophies.
      No, being able to take someone else's code and rebrand it as your own is more restrictive the the original writer. If you want in you should pitch in, thats how the world is supposed to work, any other way is essentially cancerous as it pulls resources from the projects of the many to the pockets of the few.

      Think of it like how there are now 140 odd companies that now control the world's economy like parasites that kill the host http://www.newscientist.com/article/...the-world.html

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Of course you will see more people complain about a restrictive license. One could argue that any restrictive license is more about egos as it is trying to push its agenda and is judgmental of others that do not share like philosophies.
        You can argue anything, that doesn't make it true.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
          I've seen much more people complain about...
          How many kilograms?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            Of course you will see more people complain about a restrictive license. One could argue that any restrictive license is more about egos as it is trying to push its agenda and is judgmental of others that do not share like philosophies.
            Of course, such a stance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Modern society is built on them. Also, I think most gpl'ers would say that their stance is an ethical one, and as such it is their belief that open source code is a community resource not a personal one. If they write code they don't necessarily care that ANYONE can use it for ANYTHING, they want to make sure that if it gets used (in whatever way) that it is more likely to enchance the community as opposed to specific entities. Of course, this is mostly taken from the perspective of others modifying the code, not so much people using the code for nefarious means.
            I think of it as the communist analog to BSDs capitalist, though this is by no means a perfect analogy.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
              Well, BSD has an egoistic license ("I want to use the code for whatever I want!"), Linux is more social ("share the code the same way you got it"), which presumably represents the mindset of its contributors. So BSD fragments, Linux stays unified. No problems.
              This is backwards. BSD license is more free compared to GPL. So, in your complaint, you should target Linux instead.

              Comment


              • #17
                One thing nobody seems to mention is that GPL-style licenses and BSD-style licenses started with different goals. You can't say one is "better" than the other unless you consider what the authors of the code are trying to accomplish.

                GPL-style licenses create an environment which provides what you might call "protection for a volunteer project", ie a place where developers can feel relatively comfortable contributing to a project knowing that their work is not likely to be forked away into someone's proprietary effort and have more resources poured into the proprietary fork than the public fork.

                BSD-style licenses were created to support standards and reference implementations, and as such allow the code to be pulled into proprietary projects because that greatly increases the chance of the code and functionality becoming and continuing to be a standard. It doesn't provide as much of a warm fuzzy feeling for volunteer developers, but in most cases BSD-style licenses are used in places where there are other reasons for proprietary developers to contribute back to the public code base, so from a practical POV you end up with similar results.
                Test signature

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                  This is backwards. BSD license is more free compared to GPL. So, in your complaint, you should target Linux instead.
                  Code under BSD is more free. But programs are more free when the code is under the GPL. So, BSD is more concerned about those who make programs, GPL about those who use them.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                    Code under BSD is more free. But programs are more free when the code is under the GPL. So, BSD is more concerned about those who make programs, GPL about those who use them.
                    I did not understand this. Can you exemplify?

                    As I have understood it, GPL requires you to release the source code in open. If you have a proprietary software, and if you use GPL library, then everything must be open sourced. GPL is very infectious, and affects everything it comes close.

                    BSD allows you to close the source and you can sell it if you wish. You decide if you want to close or open it. Thus, more freedom for you. You decide.

                    Now you say things about code, and about programs? Can you explain it a bit more?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                      As I have understood it, GPL requires you to release the source code in open. If you have a proprietary software, and if you use GPL library, then everything must be open sourced. GPL is very infectious, and affects everything it comes close.
                      Right. You use a GPL library (which nobody forces you to do), and that saves you the time needed to write equivalent code. The price is your own code.

                      BSD allows you to close the source and you can sell it if you wish. You decide if you want to close or open it. Thus, more freedom for you. You decide.
                      The coder-centric view.

                      Now you say things about code, and about programs? Can you explain it a bit more?
                      Example:

                      You use the Linux kernel, put it on a phone and sell that. Your kernel source is available, so if there's enough interest, people can continue developing a system for your hardware when your commercial interest has waned.

                      You use a BSD kernel, do stuff with it, call it Mac OS and sell it. The user has to pay lots of money to use it, and if you decide not to support your old PPC hardware platforms anymore, though luck.

                      Similar for programs, if a developer is allowed to close and sell the code, it's the user's loss (long term, short term the vendor might add some value). And the world contains much more users than developers, so overall, free code benefits much less people than free applications.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X