Originally posted by AnonymousCoward
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux 3.2 Kernel May Be Of A Worrying Size
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostOf 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.
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
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostOf 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
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostOf 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.
I think of it as the communist analog to BSDs capitalist, though this is by no means a perfect analogy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View PostWell, 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.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostThis is backwards. BSD license is more free compared to GPL. So, in your complaint, you should target Linux instead.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View PostCode 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.
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
-
Originally posted by kebabbert View PostAs 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?
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
Comment