Re: [Nolug] RMS vs Cisco (Round 1 *ding*ding*)

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 03:02:29PM -0600, Jeremy (mailing list box) wrote:
> Joey Kelly wrote:
> >I guess I can jump in here, now that I'm back in town.
>
> Glad you made it back in one piece.
>
> >BSD has often been equated to a license to steal, and in fact Microsoft
> >"stole" the BSD networking stack for NT4. The license allows no actual
> >stealing, but it comes pretty close. Sure, you can argue otherwise, but if
> >you write code, anyone can take it and do what they want with it, and they
> >owe you little-to-nothing in return. Money isn't the currency in
> >question... their changes are theirs, and you can't use their
> >modifications, unless they decide to be nice to you. They can change the
> >license AFAIK, or at least that's what Microsoft did, unless I'm sorely
> >mistaken.
>
> As much as I like the BSD, mostly because it is closer to truly free
> software, like the GPL I see an issue with it. Initially I wasn't
> opposed to the ability of the software to be integrated into proprietary
> systems, but later it dawned on me that money was being made on other
> people's work. I never got around to writing it up, but I've always
> thought a tweak to the BSD license was needed. Something like the
> following:
>
> 3. IN THE CASE OF CLOSED SOURCE, PROPRIETARY AND PRODUCTS COVERED BY
> NDA, REDISTRIBUTIONS OF BINARIES AND SOURCE ARE PERMITTED ONLY IF
> EXPLICIT PERMISSIONS IS GRANTED BY THE AUTHOR AND, IF APPLICABLE,
> LICENSE FESS ARE PAID TO THE AUTHOR.
>
> Obviously it would need to be tweaked and reviewed by a legal beagle,
> but a tweak like this would allow the source to remain open, without
> compelling anyone to use a specific open source license, but it also
> allows code to be use in proprietary products in a way that isn't
> detrimental to open source. The license to "steal" becomes much more
> equitable to the folks who would be stolen from.

FreeBSD uses the BSD license specifically to encourage commercial reuse and technology transfer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNkqKdLm1rU

Start at 00:09:30.

FWIW, I found this - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

Apparently their only problem with the BSD license is that it forces you to keep a potentially large number credit statements in code...compelling, I know. An additional benefit to teh BSD (that I see) is that the amount of energy needed to enforce the license is *minimal*. I guess this is ideal if you're trying to maximize exactly what RMS and his follows are railing against.

Compare this for the need to maintain a psuedo-legal entity simply for the enforcement *and* the advocacy of a particular license. I guess the upside is that they keep more than a few lawyers employed...the indoctrination continues.

Brett

ps: my lines aren't wrapped since I am using mutt+vi, and I couldn't figure out how to force line breaks at a particular column; I hate having to remember to hit <enter> at a certain point if I am not starting a new paragraph. Ideally, I'd like to be able to send my messages through a formatting utility, so if anyone knows how to do that (I casually searched google), let me know.

>
> J
> ___________________
> Nolug mailing list
> nolug@nolug.org

-- 
B. Estrade
Louisiana Optical Network Initiative
+1.225.578.1920 aim: bz743
:wq
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org