Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] GPL vs BSD vs Exploitation by Predatory Monopoly

none <byron@upstairs> espoused:
> In article <1btzlsgwjtenq$.1w926tpb4wny1$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> Moshe Goldfarb  <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:20:21 -0600, none wrote:
>>> In article <10128867.8tItTksYdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Roy Schestowitz  <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>GPL and BSD : impact
>>>>,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| Corporations like Microsoft love the BSD-style licenses. Case in point is the 
>>>>| Microsoft NT TCP/IP stack, which is basically a binary copy of the BSD TCP/IP 
>>>>| stack. With a BSD-Style license, while code can not be stolen, rights of 
>>>>| ownership cannot be enforced either.   
>>> The blog author did make one mistake. He has the following as a GPL
>>> rule:
>>> -------------------------
>>> #4: Everybody who modifies the source code must submit the changes back
>>> to the original author
>>> -------------------------
>>> That's not correct. Modifiers of GPL software are obligated to
>>> distribute modifications downstream, not upstream. If I modify someone's
>>> code then I have to give the source of the modification to anyone I give
>>> the software to. That may or may not include the original author.
>>> In practice modifications are a public distribution. But there's nothing
>>> in the GPL that requires the distribution be public.
>>> BAJ
>>It's pretty pathetic when you Linux freaks can't even get your stories
> The original blog author didn't proport to be a Linux user. They were
> only discussion Open Source licenses.
>>The GPL is a clusterfsck.
> The GPL is what it is. Stallman and the FSF want maximum
> usage/modification/distribution freedom of software for end users. Most
> of Linux truthfully is a mix of code licensed with either modified GPL
> licenses are Open Source licenses with somewhat less restrictions than
> the GPL.

Careful with your spin, Sir!  The GPL has elements which serve to ensure
maximum freedom, therefore *minimum* restrictions.  Some licences which
appear to be more "permissive" typically show permissiveness in methods
for taking code without giving back, for locking-down, for producing
binary-only distributions and so on, basically, code with far greater
restrictions than GPLed code.

| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk          |
| Cola faq:  http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/   |
| Cola trolls:  http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/                        |
| My (new) blog:  http://www.thereisnomagic.org                        |

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index