Re: [Nolug] BSD vs GPL

Weird !!! Wicked and whatnot.....

I would have never guessed such restrictions on freedom are automatic.
Based on the timeframe things went wrong direction (From freedom
standpoint), who knows perhaps M$ had something to do with it. Then on
the other hand, if my secondary memory module serves correctly, original
*NIX systems were not free either....

Petri

Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> Petri Laihonen <pietu@weblizards.net> writes:
>
>
>> 1) Licensing has absolutely no effect on peoples honesty nor lack
>> thereof. (upbringing has the most effect on that)
>>
>
> Absolutely correct. But, honest people know that if they redistribute
> GPL software, they are bound tro certain conditions. We've seen over
> and over (with proprietary and GPL software) that there are those who
> don't care a bit about the legal restrictions a license puts on them.
> (Though, its a lot harder to violate the GPL than most EULAs.)
>
>
>> 2) Licenses are created for the limiting purposes only.
>>
>
> Not true. The BSD-style licenses are there specifically because our
> copyright system doesn't have a good, simple way of putting something in
> the public domain. Back in the late 70s, early 80s, when copyright on
> software was granted by default, it became extremely difficult to create
> un-copyrighted software.
>
> So, software has the terms that copyright sets by default. Changing
> those terms (as the BSD, GPL and all EULAs do) requires a license.
>
>
>> 3) Why would freedom need a license?
>>
>
> Because otherwise copyright restricts your freedom. Copyright means
> that you do not have the right to modify someone else's source code.
> That right has to be granted.
>
> The GPL and BSD grants that right. The BSD does not put restrictions on
> what you can do with your modifications, but the GPL does.
>
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org