Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Adam wrote:
> Tobias Weisserth  wrote:

quoted text
>

>> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"

>> as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it

>> "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!".

>

> Don't believe RMSs FUD.  You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD

> licensed

> code is still there.  Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD

> licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.

> Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and

> everyone to use.  That is free.  The code they added to it is not

> free,

> but the BSD licensed code is.  The GPL is not about releasing free

> code,

> its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under

> the GPL.

Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really

change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when

it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use

it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been

originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,

his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.
Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with

GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if

Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a

closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes

make the free software work on the device in the first place, the

software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the

software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to

buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the

originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,

then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software

unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it

can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed

software.
Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that

incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a

particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at

all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,

that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the

Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.

You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in

computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL

FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any

devices that have been delivered with software based on free software

and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty clever.
There are many cases where a GPL license is the only sensible choice

in my opinion. Of course, I don't reject the BSD license either. It

all depends on what you want to bring about and secure. There is no

one-and-only-free license.
>> opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free"

quoted text
>

> And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL

> should not

> be labeled "free" in the first place.

I simply can't follow this absolute rejection of the positive effect

the GPL ensures. It's not that the BSD license and GPL license fight

a battle for world domination. Not that it would be fair, given the

"viral" character of the GPL... :-P
regards,

Tobias W.