What's free? BSD vs. GPL

[paxcoder]

Okay, so what are you going to do to me if I take your GPL'd code, implement it in my OS under my BSD license, and don't even acknowledge you? What if I do acknowledge you, but I refuse to switch to the assimilation device that is the GPL?

That's taking it a bit further but fine. I'll assume you're not asking just to have a reason to hold a grudge against me, so I'm going to answer as if you asked "what could a person do to prevent his code from being made non-free". The answer is: I could sue you. And there is also at least one organization that would help me out. See http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

If I give you something and you take/use it under the terms I specified than you haven't "robbed" me.

That too. But if you care about people using it freely, then you're better of with GPL which will guarantee those freedoms will hold in future as well. However, if you want your code to be used in non-free project (in any kind really), then choose BSD. I just don't see why you would do that if you were an advocate of free software.

[Troy Martin]

But if you care about people using it freely, then you're better of with GPL which will guarantee those freedoms will hold in future as well. However, if you want your code to be used in non-free project (in any kind really), then choose BSD. I just don't see why you would do that if you were an advocate of free software.

I personally think you're making the GPL sound like a license for the paranoid and the overly-legal.

[stephenj]

But if you care about people using it freely, then you're better of with GPL which will guarantee those freedoms will hold in future as well.

How does giving someone else read access to my code deprive me of it? It'll be available (free) to everyone who wants it.

However, if you want your code to be used in non-free project (in any kind really), then choose BSD. I just don't see why you would do that if you were an advocate of free software.

Again, my code is freely available on my server. You can do whatever you want with your modifications.

There are times when it is preferable to use a permissive license. Here's an interesting case from RMS.

[paxcoder]

I personally think you're making the GPL sound like a license for the paranoid and the overly-legal.

Unfortunately, legal is how the world works. If you're making a useful project (eg. a good library), there's nothing paranoid about it - your code *will* get taken. The question is only if it'll be given back or not.

But if you care about people using it freely, then you're better of with GPL which will guarantee those freedoms will hold in future as well.

How does giving someone else read access to my code deprive me of it? It'll be available (free) to everyone who wants it.

I believe I've said it all in the previous post. If you want your code to be used to build the non-free software, it's your prerogative. But if you want to ensure the n-th (where n > 1) user also uses you're code application freely, you'll choose GPL.

Again, my code is freely available on my server. You can do whatever you want with your modifications.

I know, that's the problem. I can steal your code from the very same community you claim to have given it to. For example, if you make a library, the user can only use it with another application. However, none of the latter, in case of BSD, are required to be free. And that is your user's loss. Even though it's said to be free, your user doesn't reap the benefits of any freedoms.

[paxcoder]

There are times when it is preferable to use a permissive license. Here's an interesting case from RMS.

No arguing there. After all, the above is what LGPL is was for. However, that's only the beginning, the aim is to have all software free: [url=http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html see also another rms' thing]. The aim of GPL was and is to protect user's freedom: If one, attribution clause was sufficient (ie if there was no "stealing" code), then there would be no need for copyleft.

[chase]

I will use both licenses where they work towards my goals. Examples:

The source code on the wiki (and If we ever get around to writing a community OS) should all be BSD or PD. Why? Because the whole point in those projects would be to help someone else create something. If we are trying to help others create something there shouldn't be any restrictions on what they create. GPL is a free open source license that restricts what people can do which isn't always a bad thing but it does go against educational efforts (IMHO).

I'm working on writing a small little game in my spare time which for now will be GPL. I choose GPL because this project isn't something I really want to share. Yep, I'm using GPL because I don't want to share something. With GPL the no one can ever make a superior product based around my code because the viral nature of the GPL means their improvements can be copied straight back into my project. With BSD someone could use my code to get a leg up on me. With GPL someone can only steal(fork) my project away from me by taking the project in a different and better direction (xfree86) or by me becoming lazy.

To me GPL means I want free code audits, free patches, and I want my project to live on if I die. BSD and PD means I want to contribute something to the world.

[paxcoder]

BSD and PD means I want to contribute something to the world.

GPL means that I want to contribute to the world, and have others contribute to it, and not just use it for their own gain, as your hypothetical non-free stealer. In other words: If community is making a wiki to help everyone, why would it allow for someone to take it, and then selfishly keep it to himself. If we want everyone to benefit, then the most beneficial for the community is copyleft. It also insures that the information will stay free.

[Troy Martin]

They may want to use some GPL'd build tools but if they start putting GPL parts directly into X, then that is going to cause another X split. I promise.

Shut up and hack.

[chase]

BSD and PD means I want to contribute something to the world.

GPL means that I want to contribute to the world, and have others contribute to it, and not just use it for their own gain, as your hypothetical non-free stealer. In other words: If community is making a wiki to help everyone, why would it allow for someone to take it, and then selfishly keep it to himself. If we want everyone to benefit, then the most beneficial for the community is copyleft. It also insures that the information will stay free.

Notice I specified source code on the wiki and not the wiki itself. If we were to write a book via the wiki I wouldn't want others to be able to resell it. (and before we ever sold it I'd want to make osdev a non-profit org) I'd like the text to probably be a non commercial share alike CC license but have the source be BSD or PD.

Please explain how releasing your source code under GPL contributes anything to the world. It doesn't mean the software is free to the average user because source code != executables. GPL just means other people can look at your code. Sure they could fork it but why the hell would they want to? (yes there are some small reasons like the xfree86 example) What does the world get besides the possibility of your project continuing once your are gone (or bored) with GPL?

[Combuster]

It also insures that the information will stay free.

Yet, the RMS fanclub like to apply the GPL to inspiration as well, so that isn't completely true.

Shut up and hack.

Seconded.

[stephenj]

But if you want to ensure the n-th (where n > 1) user also uses you're code application freely, you'll choose GPL.

Why would they lose access to the code I put on my server under a permissive license? Was I DDOS'd?

I know, that's the problem. I can steal your code from the very same community you claim to have given it to.

I fail to see a problem with "stealing" as long as you've followed the terms I've set forth (with either license).

You need to define your arguments better. Don't use the word "stealing" when you want to use the phrase "modification deprivation", if you aren't careful then you're making the same mistake as the RIAA when they call infringement "piracy".

As for someone depriving me of their modifications, people in the permissive licensing camp don't see that as an issue. And there are valid reasons for not worrying. Why would I care if someone uses my code as a library in a non-open application? It helps them and allows me to put "Company X integrated my software in their product." on my resume. I feel I'd derive more value from that than a few patches.

Even though it's said to be free, your user doesn't reap the benefits of any freedoms.

What benefits are they being deprived of?

Throughout this debate you've been advocating that an essential component of freedom is not being deprived of future modifications. Why is that aspect so important? Why do you think the rest of us don't really care about it? The freedom I care about is the freedom to understand/fix components, using BSD licensed code does not deprive me of that. Yes, I don't have access to closed modifications, but that is quickly remedied by my refusal not to use closed code.

In short, why should I care what other people are doing?

[Brynet-Inc]

Throughout this debate you've been advocating that an essential component of freedom is not being deprived of future modifications. Why is that aspect so important? Why do you think the rest of us don't really care about it? The freedom I care about is the freedom to understand/fix components, using BSD licensed code does not deprive me of that. Yes, I don't have access to closed modifications, but that is quickly remedied by my refusal not to use closed code.

In short, why should I care what other people are doing?

QFT.

You're losing this argument paxcoder.

[paxcoder]

As for someone depriving me of their modifications, people in the permissive licensing camp don't see that as an issue.

Why? It is an issue. If more people can benefit from your code (ie when integrated in someone else's), then why not? Why would you support non-free software? If it's only attribution you're seeing as important, fine, use BSD, but I'd like my code to remain free, and not feed the world that is non-cooperative, restrictive, selfish, contributes back to the community with nothing (because everything else is invisible to us) etc.

Even though it's said to be free, your user doesn't reap the benefits of any freedoms.

What benefits are they being deprived of?

The benefits of those same freedoms which you have given to the person who would improve their, non-free software using your work. GPL is devised to be free for all, not just for the first user.

Throughout this debate you've been advocating that an essential component of freedom is not being deprived of future modifications. Why is that aspect so important?

If you don't see why software should be free, there's no point in me trying to explain. If you do, then it is to keep it free, rather then feed the idea source should be hidden, and knowledge and code (and eventually with patents, even ideas) not shared.

Why do you think the rest of us don't really care about it?

I assumed so. If I was wrong, and you don't care about free software, then there's no point having a debate which license gives your users more freedom. And by users, I mean your secondary, terciary etc (and indirect) users as well, not just your primary users.

The freedom I care about is the freedom to understand/fix components, using BSD licensed code does not deprive me of that.

It does deprive your users, once an innovation is added to your work, and the derivative is withhold from the community. Knowledge should be free.

Yes, I don't have access to closed modifications, but that is quickly remedied by my refusal not to use closed code.

No, it's not. You need to make a replacement, reinvent hot water, waste hours solely based on someone's selfishness. This thinking should be eradicated. GPL is means to ensure that your code stays free. For everyone, not just someone.

In short, why should I care what other people are doing?

Because few benefit from software that can only be used as a black box, and all can benefit from free software.

[Troy Martin]

You're losing this argument paxcoder.

QFT.

Need I quote Theo again?

[Combuster]

I think we have all seen the arguments, and I have certainly seen enough mud being thrown already that it is wise to wrap this up. Especially when there are people going religious on their point of view (and I seriously doubt the OP was ready to hear the answer)

Since we're done here, we are in need of a new discussion subject, anyone?