Tweet
Originally posted by Ansla
View Post
Originally posted by Wikipedia
-
That's the lousiest argument I've seen in a long time...
Also I'd be interested in how you explain that there is so much freely available code in the LLVM project when it's obviously not under a "for freedom" license. -
> Also I'd be interested in how you explain that there is so much freely available code in the LLVM project when it's obviously not under a "for freedom" license.
LLVM is free software because BSD license is a free software license - no point to discuss here.
The discussion of BSD vs. GPL license when it comes to freedom is more complicated and not possible to be driven without historical background.
There were plenty of technologies licensed under BSD which in one moment over the years went proprietary because of such a possibility - the number of users of proprietary version was higher and higher and in a particular moment the application _stopped to be free software_: nobody cared about BSD licensed source code anymore and all development happened behind closed door.
Look at SPICE, various BSDs and UNIX. This is not speculation, what happens with apps and OSes released under BSD license - this is history and not caring about history when discussing about a topis is called ignorance.
From another side: first mission of GPL license is to ensure that the software not only is free, but to guarantee, that it will be free forever, because the game FSF plays is not called "release cool software for free", but it is about social development mission in which software and technology freedom is a key point and what I can say from a perspective of a leader of small company who has plenty of problems because of 'closed technology' approach: FSF and RMS is the hell perfectly right.
The only problem for at least 90% of users out there with GPLv3 is incompatibility with GPLv2 - the are no other problems with the former! The guys who have problems with GPLv3 are those who want to make money from somebody's else work without payment and contribution and against the idea of free software (software patents etc.).
And if you want to stay a zealot who defends money of the big ones, which (the money) comes very frequently from locking-out competition and locking-in of customers it is strictly up to you.
As the last some words of David A. Wheeler - the guy knows well what it is all about: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.netbsd.general/17246.
Today BSDs in all the possible flavors are behind Linux which not only is the technologically first, but also opens the door for knowledge for others by a brute force with his GPL license - for HW company there is a choise: either release Linux support with at least spare info about your HW (almost mandatory for plentiful of OEMs because of Android) or go to hell. This is the real and working GPL vs. BSD fight,
T.Comment
-
GPLv3 vs BSD
again, it's a question of perspective and of whose freedom we're considering.
First before all, none of this license aren't restrictive.
What would be restictive is having no license at all, then the copyright law kicks in and you're basically forbiden from making any copy.
Both licenses are enabling because both licenses gives you extra rights beyond what the law restricts. Without them you would be unable to copy, with these license, you are now allowed to make copies so both are a huge improvement over the default.
Now the difference is the perspective:
- BSD is good and appreciated by commercial developers, they get the code for free, but then they are free to do whatever they want including re-licensing the code, or releasing proprietary and binary only.
- GPL and LGPL are good for me, the end user. No matter whom a piece of code has went through, I'm always guaranteed to get a copy of the code. That's useful for me as an end user. Both directly (because I happen to be able to program and understand code, and thus code is directly useful for me) and indirectly (because code can also be reviewed by other 3rd parties ; because in case of bug or exploit I'm still allowed to get a fix and replace the faulty component - even non-programmers benefits from GPL, even if they can't use code directly, that still means that someone else could do on their behalf or even on their pay-roll)
I am mostly an end-user and as such GPL is better and more free for me than BSD.
To me BSD is more problematic, because it doesn't guaranties that the code will reach me with all accompanying freedoms.
Note: versions of GPL after 1 basically are just some extra bitching by RMS and FSF, simply because some companies don't want to follow the actual spirit of the GPL. The spirit of the GPL is, as mentioned in the second, the guarantee that code keeps getting passed on with still the same freedoms all the way to the end user. But companies will try to use all the trick up in their sleeves to prevent this and circumvent it: patents, encryption and DRM, you name it.
Note2: because LLVM is strongly multicomponent, LGPL might be a valid license for it, like for any library. It still guaranties the same freedom and the passing of the freedom up to the end user like GPL, but it's restricted solely to the library or component licensed under LGPL. If code is combined (as it's frequently the case with libraries) there's no "contamination" to the rest of the project (as some commercial developers are often afraid).Comment
-
The BSD and LLVM motto:
Slavery is Freedom
Close is Open
Slow is Fast
Insecure is Secure
Corporate is Community
Hypocrisy is HonestyComment
-
-
> - BSD is good and appreciated by commercial developers (....)
> - GPL and LGPL are good for me, the end user. (...)
Not quite true - GPL & LGPL are also good for commercial developers: it depends only on your business model. When you think about software as a service ( similar licensed OpenERP here? ) or double licensing: good community / commercial features for company ( Wine?) or simply want to create start-up doing some technology work in which GPL based software is only one of the components the GPL is very good license. You use the code of others? OK - you should share your code in the scope of GPL licensed derivative work. If you make anything not derivative of GPL licensed software you can keep it closed, but what others wanted to stay free stays free forever.
And please remember: FSF is not against earning money, so also GPL is not against. More to say: if any S/W license forbids earning money on the software but makes software free in any other aspect it is not considered by FSF as free software license! It is perfectly ok to earn the money with GPL licensed software, even more: it is encouraged.
> To me BSD is more problematic, because it doesn't guaranties that the code will reach me with all accompanying freedoms.
What drives the companies is market force: if the users will want such a guaranty the users get such guaranty. So supporting BSD where GPL could be introduced is something against interests of mine, most of users and some developers, even big ones: RedHat, Intel, IBM, Samsung are all big companies and also develop & make money of GPLed software,
regards,
T.Comment
-
Yup. Depends entirely on the business model.Originally posted by trevik88 View Post
- I do work at the maintenance of a (big collection of) big cluster. We do indeed provide a *service* to our users (big clusters that run, including running their own software or software that they ask). Free Software and Opensource are desirable for us. Both because it makes much more easy to get the software running for our end users (= unlike some blobs), and because it increase transparency which is desirable in the academics (= most of our users).
GPL is good for our model.
- We're speaking about LLVM here and about Apple, who'll happily shut down the front door and keep LLVM hidden if they determine that it serves their purpose better (...and in the past, Apple has already proven that they would do it).
They are typically the commercial entity that will happily NOT provide the source.
Case in point: MAME license and such other "non-commercial" license are not Free/Libre SoftwareOriginally posted by trevik88 View Post
Saddly most users are clueless. They usually don't give a damn at the beginning, and initially call "Communist Hippie" any one who tries to explain a bit about such issue. They only realise the problem, after it's too late and they've been completely raped by the company, at which point they are left with "bitching and whining" as their only option.Originally posted by trevik88 View Post
And instead of learning from these experiences, they still manage to get bitten again next time, sometime even by the same company.
So the the only message that the companies get from the market is : "Masses are stupid. Treat them like idiot sucker. Abuse them as much as you want. Try to crook as much money out of their pocket as possible, they won't notice until it's too late. And then they'll only bitch a bit and come back to you later because they'll have forgotten everything by the time you make your next release and they'll be too much blinded by the next shiny to notice that the story is going to repeat itself again".Comment
-
The first loud cries about "communists" in such a context I've read were from Bill Gates & Co several years ago.Saddly most users are clueless. They usually don't give a damn at the beginning, and initially call "Communist Hippie" any one who tries to explain a bit about such issue.
This is also a kind of "modern marketing" - drive people away (ab)using common negative perceptions on some topics.
Describing people who only want to stay independent forever and have a bit more imagination than the rest as communists? Communism is about individual staying 100% dependent on state and its companies - free software advocates are completely opposite!
Does any fan-boy of MS know who would be a communist in this context? In classical (Marx & Lenin approach) this would be a guy who would want to nationalize Microsoft, insert some government nominated board of directors there to protect political interests of state and sell Microsoft Office as usual. I have never seen such approach among free software advocates ;-).
And of course LLVM's biggest problem when concerning freedom is Apple behind the back. FSF and Stallman wouldn't probably be so worried about LLVM progress when some other entity would be primary force to drive development of LLVM compiler...
T.Comment
Comment