login
Search
"OpenBSD is free as in air," Theo de Raadt [interview] stated in a recent thread on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list. The discussion began with a note that the Open Sound System [story] had recently been "open sourced" under the GPLv2 and CDDL leading Theo to comment, "noone cares about being Open and Free anymore. They just care about being called Open and Free, and how convenient -- a bunch of laywers generated an organization that will label them Open and Free when they are not in fact so."
Later in the discussion it was asked why the OpenBSD project used the BSD license rather than simply releasing the code into the Public Domain. Theo explained, "we wish to retain the legal right to be known as the author, and not have our names taken off the files. With public domain, that stuff at the top of the file is taken away first, before anything else is done," noting that this is explained in the license at the top of each file, "just that bit; nothing else."
From: Edd Barrett [email blocked] To: "OpenBSD general usage list" [email blocked] Subject: Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:33:58 +0100 Hi guys, I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would point out the thread here. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. -- Best Regards Edd --------------------------------------------------- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
From: Darren Spruell [email blocked] Subject: Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:41:34 -0700 On 6/13/07, Edd Barrett [email blocked] wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the > open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is > unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an > interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. > > I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email > Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would > point out the thread here. > > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 > Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. "...After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can." - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 It appears that the question might be whether anyone over in their camp is concerned with releasing code under a license even permissive enough to be included. They don't seem to care that OpenBSD as a project seems to have more stringent goals and policies than others. DS
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked] Subject: Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:49:11 -0600 > On 6/13/07, Edd Barrett [email blocked] wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the > > open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is > > unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an > > interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. > > > > I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email > > Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would > > point out the thread here. > > > > http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 > > Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. > > "...After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't > know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can." > - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 > > It appears that the question might be whether anyone over in their > camp is concerned with releasing code under a license even permissive > enough to be included. They don't seem to care that OpenBSD as a > project seems to have more stringent goals and policies than others. Noone cares about being Open and Free anymore. They just care about being called Open and Free, and how convenient -- a bunch of laywers generated an organization that will label then Open and Free when they are not in fact so.
From: Breen Ouellette [email blocked] Subject: Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:12:13 -0600 Theo de Raadt wrote: >> On 6/13/07, Edd Barrett [email blocked] wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I have been reading a thread on opensolaris.org regarding the >>> open-sourcing of 4front's OSS. After explaining why CDDL licensing is >>> unsuitable for OpenBSD, some of the developers have expressed an >>> interest to contact Theo regarding licensing and OpenBSD. >>> >>> I do not know much about licensing, nor do I feel that I should email >>> Theo personally as he may not appreciate it. Just thought I would >>> point out the thread here. >>> >>> http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 >>> Is OpenBSD even interested in multi threaded OSS? I wouldn't mind it. >>> >> "...After much deliberation - we're going with CDDL for BSD. I don't >> know why OpenBSD can't work with CDDL since FreeBSD and NetBSD can." >> - http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=32401&tstart=0 >> >> It appears that the question might be whether anyone over in their >> camp is concerned with releasing code under a license even permissive >> enough to be included. They don't seem to care that OpenBSD as a >> project seems to have more stringent goals and policies than others. >> > > Noone cares about being Open and Free anymore. > > They just care about being called Open and Free, and how convenient -- > a bunch of laywers generated an organization that will label then Open > and Free when they are not in fact so. > > You know, phrases like 'free as in beer / free as in speech' have oversimplified and diluted open and free principles to the point that it is now equivalent to 'cheap and easy'. Complaining that OpenBSD has 'more stringent goals and policies than others' stems from this laziness. Free and open goals and principles have taken a back seat to easy solutions for cheapskates and greedy corporations. A sincere belief that something is open and free is held higher than having a factually verifiable open and free license. Sincerity should never overshadow fact in the realm of software. Sincerity is an emotional response where a factual response is most appropriate. Principles have taken a back seat to cheap and easy thinking. I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more stringent ... than others': 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' Society is failing to produce quality because it is acceptable, and in many cases preferable, to be sincere rather than factual. All these projects which don't understand OpenBSD's uncompromising policies are suffering from sincerity syndrome. They think that they can just feel like their projects are free and open and then say that they are. We live in a society of bullshitters, and the bullshitters have infiltrated open and free software. We have an uphill battle to fight because bullshitting has become generally accepted behaviour. Most people are bullshitters. We need to stop tolerating it in ourselves and in others. Breeno
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked] Subject: Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:23:21 -0600 > I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that don't > approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more stringent ... than > others': > > 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. They > are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it should be popularized. OpenBSD is free as in air. There, pass it around. Almost all the other software out there is NOT free as in air. Instead, it is "free as in hangovers". Whatever the fuck that means... but the analogy is no less clear "free as in beer". > Society is failing to produce quality because it is acceptable, and in > many cases preferable, to be sincere rather than factual. All these > projects which don't understand OpenBSD's uncompromising policies are > suffering from sincerity syndrome. They think that they can just feel > like their projects are free and open and then say that they are. We > live in a society of bullshitters, and the bullshitters have infiltrated > open and free software. We have an uphill battle to fight because > bullshitting has become generally accepted behaviour. Most people are > bullshitters. We need to stop tolerating it in ourselves and in others. Well, you won't fix any of that, and neither really will we. We'll stick to our principles for reasons entirely dissasociated from those problems, and noone will ever really understand. Probably not even you will really ever fully understand ;)
From: J.C. Roberts [email blocked] Subject: Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 08:07:36 -0700 On Thursday 14 June 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I propose a new phrase to describe 'Open and Free' projects that > > don't approve of OpenBSD's policies because they are 'more > > stringent ... than others': > > > > 'They aren't free as in speech. They aren't even free as in beer. > > They are cheap and easy as in prostitutes.' > > I have been throwing around a phrase for a few weeks. Perhaps it > should be popularized. > > OpenBSD is free as in air. > > There, pass it around. Almost all the other software out there is > NOT free as in air. Instead, it is "free as in hangovers". Whatever > the fuck that means... but the analogy is no less clear "free as in > beer". > There is nothing inherently wrong with a license which is designed to be contagious and force the release of source code (GPL) or other derivative works (CreativeCommons "share-alike" or more accurately "forced-release") but calling it anything other than what it actually is should be considered nothing more than a lie. Trying to manipulate the terms "Free" and "Open" is blatant dishonesty. Unfortunately, the majority of licenses and projects are intellectually dishonest and they try to manipulate these terms to make their sneaky, underhanded goals seem more acceptable to the general population. If you want a far more clear and accurate phrase, as well as be more confrontational, the phrase "Honestly Free Software" is a good alternative. "Free as in Honestly Free" will put the hammer down on all projects and licenses which are manipulative excuses for being something other than actually free. When you see a dishonest person saying "Free as in Speech" or "Free as in Blobs" call them a liar in the most loud and public manner possible. If you cannot trust a license or the people who use it to be honest, you have a good reason to not trust them at all. Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult to "prove" a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there some other reason which I do not understand? In my admitted legal ignorance, a push for "Public Domain Software" (i.e. without copyright or license of any sort) might result in the most truly "Free" software possible? The wooshing sound I hear is probably a fast approaching clue stick. ;-) -JCR
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked] Subject: Re: [OT] Open Source OSS for OpenBSD? Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:32:11 -0600 > Lastly, I realize many people, both developers and users (and me), have > a historical affection for the BSD license but I've always wondered why > code is not placed in the Public Domain rather than being copyrighted > and BSD licensed? Is the reason for this merely because it's difficult > to "prove" a work is in the Public Domain, or (more likely) is there > some other reason which I do not understand? We wish to retain the legal right to be known as the author, and not have our names taken off the files. With public domain, that stuff at the top of the file is taken away first, before anything else is done. Don't you read what's left at the top of the files? Just that bit; nothing else.
The 'Archive of above
The 'Archive of above thread' link has no target.
while air is still indeed
while air is still indeed free.. at places like my local gas (or petrol) station it cost me 50 cents to use a compressor to blow up my tires. so even 'free as in air' may have caveats... :)
Excellent confirmation
This confirms Theo's argument. You can try to blow the air into your tires with your mouth, but it is better to use a medium for it. The same goes for trying to install OpenBSD without internet access and install media.
As for the comparison with air, I suppose it should be seen in a broader sense as in the fact that it is not a product sample being handed out somewhere, but it exists in abundance, for all to use - and only threatened by ruthless businesses...
Cant hear a thing
"OpenBSD is free as in air," Theo de Raadt [interview] stated in a recent thread on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list. The discussion began with a note that the Open Sound System [story] had recently been "open sourced" under the GPLv2 and CDDL leading Theo to comment, "noone cares about being Open and Free anymore. They just care about being called Open and Free, and how convenient -- a bunch of laywers generated an organization that will label them Open and Free when they are not in fact so."
-> ya so, he is right !
Later in the discussion it was asked why the OpenBSD project used the BSD license rather than simply releasing the code into the Public Domain. Theo explained, "we wish to retain the legal right to be known as the author, and not have our names taken off the files. With public domain, that stuff at the top of the file is taken away first, before anything else is done," noting that this is explained in the license at the top of each file, "just that bit; nothing else."
->...right again.
Maybe every OS out there that uses a TCP/IP stack, or openssh, or the 1000's of other contributions they've made, should $PAY$ all the BSDs' money ? It would sure justify those BSD/Unix programers, developers, ...
(Instead, they all charge us eventually for just that)
Just compare what the BSD's have contributed to development,... over the last 30 years ? and this was without the $$$$, and corporate might that the big-guys with their dirty DRM's - threats to monopolize on all hardware and required drivers - ,..., could expend.
-needless they gotta charge someone if "you" want to get paid.
Is 4fronts' OSS goin to gplv2/cddl good?. -OpenSolaris is gonna "need" drivers and lots of them. The BSD's know, 'cause they also have been needing "good" drivers for years.
:)
-I'm sorry, but i can't pretend to know the intricasies of GPLv2/3/4/5/6/...
or ehatever. I barely comprehend the BSD-Licencing scheme of things.
But, for any of us smaller guys with somewhat adept Unix skills thank God for the Net/Free/OpenBSD's out there that are Blowin' wind freely ! -and the rest, as far as I'm concerned are jusr Suckin' it up.
Rick.
Air might be free, but the
Air might be free, but the manufacture and maintenance of an air compressor certainly is not.
In my country (Algeria) it
In my country (Algeria) it costs exactly zero dinars to blow up your tires.
Working from the original ref
Free as in "Free to Pursue Happines"
Just missing the point
Free as in freedom. Libre. Over the 10 or so years I've used and/or helped develop GPL software (showing my bias there), I've come to my own conclusion that the difference of opinions aren't in the details of which license is more free (a strange argument that), but in the scope of the argument. From a pure freedom license, GPL. The code will always be open. If you public domained the code, it may be closed up. BSD always seemed to me strange. I understand it from a coding standpoint, but if you take even a little step away from the purity of coding, that is, you take into account society, it fails the freedom test on a couple of levels.
My bias is strong enough that I use Linux, even though I really do like the BSD environment more. It's a philosophical standpoint.
It is about restrictions
Your "freedom" sounds like a complex social and political issue. If "freedom" was however defined as the absence of restrictions, the BSD license would fail the test in only it's 1, 2, 3, or 4 clauses.
BSD is free as in
BSD is free as in anarchy.
Nothing to keep people from destroying other people's freedom.
however...
GPL v BSD
Seriously consider - this is not "THAT" big of a logical debate.
Yes, BSD style licensing IS more free from the standpoint of what any future person can do with it, namely, use it in their own commercial app which they could sell
Whereas GPL is more 'free' from the standpoint of the future users - anything built using GPL must be also
In biology we could call this different forms of offspring,
BSD could have free or commercial offspring
GPL only has free offspring
So, BSD is more free because anyone can do anything with it - sure, but that begs the question - is it 'right' since the offspring are not guaranteed, IE, an INDIVIDUAL gets the benefit of COMMUNITY built software, and could add something useful to it and sell it... this appeals to the entrepreneurs in all of us - thus more 'free' than GPL.
The 'righteousness' in us however screams out that if its built using any of the community code - it MUST stay in the community - thus - they could say it's more 'free' in the sense that more people in future communities will have the software for free, guaranteed.
BOTH above paragraphs are true - so we get a contradiction seemingly.
From one viewpoint - i like that both exist - they help but also hurt each other - refine each other.
I don't think BSD could 'kill' GPL - the simple fact is enough people believe in free software, and community built logic, that they would not give up on GPL and start paying others for everything.
However, GPL really could kill BSD - since, if someone makes a really cool system/app/appliance using BSD and sells it, nothing stops GPL from coming along and doing it themselves if it bothers them so much
This whole 'more free' bullsh*t is lip service and over simplification - for BOTH camps - those who understand see thru it - so please stop the stupidity.
END result is...
Keep both, BSD will gain more of the keener's and ambitious, GPL will gain more communal thinkers, the more empathetic.
I wish they could support each other more - but really they can't - if you stick GPL inside BSD, the BSD is poisoned due to GPL.
Same goes for BSD inside GPL...
HOWEVER, IF we are smart enough to PARADYME shift, and stop calling anything with a module in it a 'derivative' work, then we get the freedom to do this...
Keep a module by module license model - IE - keep the BSD parts BSD, they could be used in GPL - but the GPL would have to allow more fine grain distinctions and allow for BSD modules to stay that way – IE – not call the resultant kernel an entirely GPL entity if it isn't.
So could BSD - use GPL modules and keep them GPL - unless they really want to rewrite them to get the freedom to create commercial derivative works.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees it this way,
I hope this helps, I hope it starts building bridges,
JL
"If you public domained the
"If you public domained the code, it may be closed up."
No it may not. This FUD is the what drives the GPL, not some ideal of freedom. Its the ideal of forced restrictions. If you release code under a BSD/MIT/ISC license, it is free. It will always be free, and can never be made not free. Someone is free to compile the code and distribute binaries without providing source, but the original source is still there, still free, and hasn't been affected. Even if your evil devil worshipping corporations take BSD code, add their own changes and then sell it without offering code, the BSD code is still available, still free, and has not been harmed in any way. There is no "closing up", there are no adverse effects, everything is just fine. Or perhaps I am mistaken and every time someone sold a closed source webserver based on apache, apache suddenly dissapeared and that's why nobody is able to use it now?
You'd think the longest lived open source project in existance (BSD) and two of the most widely used open source projects (X and apache) having FREE licenses and never having been magically closed up by your mythical evil corporations would be enough to get you GPL zealots to quit lying and spreading FUD.
Nice rant, but completely out of touch with reality
Nice rant, but completely out of touch with reality. I wonder why people with an engineering background can be so naive about the harsh realities of human nature. Oh! Wait a minute! I'm a scientist of the Natural Sciences persuasion and most of my colleagues, mentors and students are equally candid or have an even less sophisticated understanding of society and man (make that Man as in platonic archetype). I guess most of us nerds suffer from Asperger Syndrome[2] or we are just plain sociopaths[3] with autistic pretensions[4].
The main problem that all of you philistines miss the real point: There is something called "The Tragedy of the Commons"[1] and it is the reason why only a fool would release his works and ideas to the public domain and still pretend that he/she won't be screwed by someone who will make bucket-loads of money off that stolen sweat and most importantly that you, in a fit of self-aggrandizing hubris, screw up your own users. The GPL tries to protect those Commons from all the Joe-Six-Packs that will, with certainty, try to steal them and make themselves rich in the process. The BSD licenses make sense insofar as you are an academician with tenure: no matter how much you steal from the University budget you will not lose your job; unless you are confirmed to be a practicing pederast and that depends on the university. Therefore you don't give a damn what other people do with your code, you have already being paid in salary and research grants.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
[3] http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
And here you prove that you
And here you prove that you don't understand a vast majority of the open source developers. They really don't care if someone takes their code and makes money out of it, some would probably even be glad that someone found it useful (I know from my own experience how satisfying it is to see code that I wrote being used for real-world applications). What's really important to them is the development of a piece of software, the constant improvements etc. There are lots of small projects out there that get no attention and only a few know about but the developers still continue, since they derive satisfaction from the development itself, and they have no thoughts at all about making any money out of it.
For these kinds of people what other people do with their work is often of little considerations, and if someone likes it and are able to contribute in some way that's just a bonus. Having read the recent discussion between (mainly) Linus Torvalds and Alexandre Oliva (you can find it here on kerneltrap.org under the heading Linux: Linus on the GPL, BSD, Tivo and the FSF) I seems to me that Linus shares this attitude, but is a bit more protective of his code than those that goes with a BSD-like licence are. Note however that he does not seem to care especially how the software (Linux) is used or if others make money from it (he had no problems whatsoever with Tivo's use of Linux).
I certainly understand human
I certainly understand human nature a lot better that you do, judging by your perception of reality. It is fine to be an idealist, but when you confuse idealism with egotistical vanity and hubris you are merely candid.
Did you know that Torvalds is worth more millions than you probably will make in your entire life? And that most of that money he did through some little insider trading when VA Software did its IPO? He's already being paid for his work.
The following comments, particularly that from the lawyer show an incredibly simplistic conception of society and humanity; guys, the Bon Savage was an idea that worked in the courts of the Enlightened Kings two-and-half centuries ago; those people were so filthy rich and powerful, they could imagine the world anyway they wanted and the world shaped itself to their whims. Acquaint yourselves with social anthropology and ethnography and then go walking down the street. Observe people behaviors. Check if you still can see all those people around you as socially fitting; check if you consider yourselves socially fitting anymore.
Now, yes. The last commenter in this subthread has in fact understood what I meant by mentioning the Tragedy of the Commons. It is fallacious to assume that human resources are infinitely numerous, that they are infinitely cheap and that everyone has an infinite willingness to participate in community projects without expecting anything in return even if it is only reciprocity on an equal footing. Anarchy has demonstrated repeatedly throughout history its inability to change the world. On the other hand, the Potlatch demonstrably has worked to establish and maintain the fabric of very sophisticated societies.
Who's out of touch with
Who's out of touch with reality? You are the one blindly assuming I have an engineering background for some reason (I don't, I am a lawyer). And you are also the one delusionally trying to pretend that software is a commons. As I already made quite clear, there is no way to be "screwed" by anyone. Take the code and do whatever you want, that's what freedom means. It doesn't hurt anyone in any way. Nothing anyone can do will ever be able to undo the code that was already written and released. Since its not a finite resource that can be consumed or destroyed, it is in no way even remotely related to a commons that needs protected.
The BSD license makes sense if you want to make your code free. If you don't that's up to you, but pretending the GPL is free is just plain stupid. And spreading FUD to try to scare stupid people into believing it is even worse.
Your argument is incorrect.
Your argument is incorrect. You wish to invoke the "Tragedy of the Commons", however, this argument (according to your source) only applies to: "a finite resource" (ref: 1st sentence in the introduction section). Since source code and software in general can be copied ad infinitum by using error correction, source code and software in general cannot be considered a finite resource. If you can perhaps explain where the resource is finite then your argument might be validated.
As I am finishing up, I realize maybe you mean profits of some sort. The profits, however, don't seem to me to be a direct result of software or source code. Profits and money making come from implementation. For instance, TiVo uses Linux, however it would be difficult to argue that the Linux TiVo uses makes them profits. I would offer that it is probably a more intelligent argument to point out that the business model (subscription based, set-top DVR systems) is the money maker. Had Linus kept the source code closed or prevented tivoization for a hundred years the "finite resource" of DVR profits would never have been exploited because they were/are not tied to to the Linux source code. TiVo would likely still exist and make money although by use of another operating system.
Patrik
The "commons" is the pool of
The "commons" is the pool of intellectual potential that exists within all of us. The "resource" that is exhausted is the will to use our time and labor to transform that intellectual potential into a useful product. Some people (the BSD/MIT/PD crowd) are willing to use their time and labor to give their intellectual potential entirely away, or even have a religious reason for doing so. Rarely, some people can even make a business case for doing so, especially when it involves getting a particular approach adopted as a standard.
On the other hand, many of us (the GPL crowd) do not work this way, because we expect equal intent in return to what we give. The choice of license reflects the motivations of the author.
There is no one "correct" or "morally superior" license for all intellectual works. There is only that license which maximizes the will of the author to contribute for a particular work. For some projects, it's BSD, for others, GPL, for others only a proprietary license and the royalties in return could motivate one to work on such a project ;-)
As long as users' rights are respected by software authors and distributors, the licensing holy wars are nonsense...if a project survives and is useful to many people, then obviously *that project* has a proper license with respect to *its contributors and users*.
My bias is strong enough
Really? I wonder why philosophy is always dragged into the discussion, although it makes it sound really profound. Do philosophers actually take software licenses serious enough to even think about? Is there a field of philosophy called "software license philosophy"? IANAP (I am not a philosopher).
Free as in water.
As a philosopher (with a couple of very expensive sheets of that paper say I am) I take software licenses seriously. I'm in the BSD camp because I believe that words mean something and have an objective, verifiable content (you can analyze how I use a term and, given enough real effort, understand what I am saying). "Free", using the term the way that I use it, means free as in air; or better yet: free as in water. Some people bottle and sell it, not all of it is good for any given purpose, but the stuff covers most of the planet and falls from the sky and if you know what you are doing with it it is life-sustaining.
All my code is released under the BSD license. I don't care if anyone else makes money off of it--if I wanted, I could always repackage my own effort and make a competing product (and win on price every time!). The only thing I ask is for the credit/blame I deserve for my effort. Anything else would not be _free_.
>>All my code is released
>>All my code is released under the BSD license. I don't care if anyone else makes money off of it--
As do most programmers who release using the GPL. The commercial distributions would have a big problem if it was otherwise.
>>if I wanted, I could always repackage my own effort and make a competing product (and win on price every time!).
That's a very naive point of view. Users aren't rational like that.
---
If Free includes freedom to poison the well, at some point, someone will.
If Free includes freedom to
If Free includes freedom to poison the well, at some point, someone will.
But how can they poison the well? They may be able to poison what they've taken from the well, but the well itself remains untainted.
Once released under the BSD license, that version can't be ever made non-free. Go read the history of OpenSSH for an example. As the SSH code became closed, the last free version was used as a starting point for progress. Newer versions of SSH were closed, but OpenSSH drew from the old well which was poison free.
Someone could take some of my BSD licensed code and modify it, sell it, whatever. But my work remains free and untainted.
>But how can they poison the
>But how can they poison the well?
By zoning it inside nomansland in a warzone.
>Once released under the BSD license, that version can't be ever made non-free.
BSD style licensing is ideal if every downstream recipient is somehow involved with computers and programming. And that's where it shows its age. In the past, this was a given. The people you coded for, were also the people you coded with.
It's an elegant and simple license, and I would very much like to use it, but unfortunately, the past is no longer, and the current situation is a far cry from elegant and simple.
Computer software represents an industry of billions of dollars, and BSD licensed operating systems just can not thrive, since "the obvious thing to do" is obscured by marketing dazzle
and greed.
With BSD right now being on the margins, it's hard to imagine how a third party could basically appropriate BSD licensed software (because, technically, as you pointed out, it can't be done)
Imagine there had never been GNU, Linux or the BSD lawsuit. And a BSD would now be at the level of commercial interest where GNU/Linux currently is.
BSD would be torn into BSD commercial vendor camps. It would be the new AT&T Unix, with every vendor making their own incompatible version.
Your code would still be free, for those who are able to patch it together from newsgroups and know where to look. For all intents and purposes of the normal world though, your code is proprietary, because you simply cannot scream louder than outrageous marketing budgets.
GPL enables those whose business is being involved with computers and programming to continue to work as they have always done, with cooperation and respect for peers.
The GPL is nothing more than the ideas embodied in a BSD licence modernized to cope with modern times.
If you only work with and inside the BSD world, it may have never occured to you because the situation is already like I just described. You can work respectfully (give or take the occasional interpersonal spat) with your peers in peace, and it's futile to try and take things proprietary. Should GNU/Linux ever falter, and BSD rise to position GNU/Linux is now in (or might soon be) BSD as you know it and love it would cease to exist.
Your source, however pure and free it may be, would lie in the middle of a barren wasteland.
So yes, the BSD license is more free, since it would allow for having your code be made irrelevant to its proprietary counterparts, and your community destroyed by greed.
It allows the Freedom to be selfdestructive when personal conscience is replaced by corporate conscience.
just a little bit restricted.
For someone who says that words mean something and have an objective, verifiable content...
As soon as you say only thing I ask is it is no longer free. The only truly free software is public domain. There is no such thing as a mostly free. Just like you can't be a little bit pregnant.
What is the real cost of
What is the real cost of leaving the name of the author in the source files? You can do what you want with the resultant programs except claim credit for the work. Only a liar would claim credit for work they didn't do. If the freedom you are giving up isn't one you'd ever exercise, did you give up a freedom?
de facto the BSD license is as free as public domain for honest people. It may not be as free as public domain in theory, but in practice it is--for honest people. If you are prone to distort the truth or take credit for other people's work, then perhaps you should avoid software released under the BSD license.
I'm glad you see that the GPL is not free in any normal sense of the term.
My bias is strong enough
Really? I wonder why philosophy is always dragged into the discussion, although it makes it sound really profound. Do philosophers actually take software licenses serious enough to even think about? Is there a field of philosophy called "software license philosophy"? IANAP (I am not a philosopher)
Free, as in space...
Free, as in space (as the universe), it's open and it's free for everyone and everything to explore.
Free as in air makes no
Free as in air makes no sense to me. As much as you would like to make fun of 'free as in beer' or 'free as in a hangover', it does make sense--at least the beer one. Beer is a *product* that people *produce*. Code is a *product" that people *produce*. Products can either be sold or given away. Heck, there's even the 'recipe' aspect of it. Even if plants and people 'produce' air (which in actuality always existed as in planetary atmosphere), it is not a *product* to be sold (but maybe given away??). The air thing just strikes me as silly--kinda like that scene in Spaceballs where they have those cans of Perri-Air. lol.
OpenBSD is not a product to
OpenBSD is not a product to be sold. Linux is not a product to be sold. Windows is a product to be sold. What you can do with Linux and OpenBSD you can not do with Windows. Linux you can not make into Windows, neither Windows into Linux, but OpenBSD you goes both ways. Air goes both ways, it is not produces but can be made a product to sell, like water.
Now do you understand "free as in air"? Which is true for oBSD but not for GPL, which requires to be free, just as Windows requires to be restricted. Linux is like a humminbird in freedom it lives, restricted it dies. OpenBSD is like air, free but can be caught and un-free. Windows is like a jail, restricted area.
"Code is a *product" that
"Code is a *product" that people *produce*."
It doesn't have to be, that's the whole point. OpenBSD is free as in air. Just like air, it is not a product to be sold, it is free for anyone to do anything they want with. Treating code as a product is stupid, code is just a way of expressing computation. The corporate interests involved want to pretend any representation of thoughts are "products" for them to cash in on, and restrict your use of. Stop letting them have their way.
I liked this comment by Theo
I liked this comment by Theo de Raadt on SUN/Jonathan Schwartz's blog, he goes into technical details, and agrees more with Linus Torvalds than SUN. Sadly, not so with the exchange above, no, this one is just to get in on the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 action. BSD has a valid perspective on open source licensing matters too! (I'm not trying to be facetious, it's just what this strikes me as)
http://neverfollow.blogspot.com
Why does a rant like that
Why does a rant like that where a philosophy is outlined always have to be followed by all kind of zealous rants? Do you folks feel offended or something just because someone follows a different lifestyle? Geez, grow up. Just support and/or use whatever you find best; the best tool for the best job. Whether you base yourself purely on technical merit, solely on political merit, a combination of that, or even mixed in with legal merit -- is all your choice. The only important aspect is that your choice is one well thought out. IOW, that you had oversight of the various available options. In that light, for those who value the philosophical/political aspect of OpenBSD, de Raadt's post is indeed valuable. Take it for what it is. Leave the choices of others with respect. We are here to disagree. Peace! Your employer would value that too, btw.
That still isn't free.
We wish to retain the legal right to be known as the author, and not
have our names taken off the files. With public domain, that stuff at
the top of the file is taken away first, before anything else is done.
If the code were truly free then I could take it and do exactly what I like with it, including stealing the credit for writing it.
This just goes to show how silly this particular argument is - the only truly free licence is public domain. Everything else is less free.
Re: That still isn't free.
But if you actually believe that taking credit for someone else's work is wrong, then it's your responsibility to express that. Such an expression would constitute, basically, a BSD-style license. And even with such a license, you're still free to steal credit if you want. It's just "illegal," but all this means is that the author is willing to take measures to protect the credit he believes he deserves.
But if you actually believe
But if you actually believe stealing other peoples code, and building products on top of it without giving back is wrong, then it's your responsibility to express that. Such an expression would constitute, basically, a GPL-style license. And even with such a license, you're still free to steal the code if you want. It's just "illegal," but all this means is that the author is willing to take measures to protect the rights he believes people deserve.
Freedom is not Free
Despite it having no cost to take in, air costs your body energy to consume, process and convert for use by the mitochondria in your cells and you depend on it to survive. Despite the huge amount of air on earth, it is still a finite resource that only slowly replenishes itself through natural processes.
Indeed, the lack of cost of air often results in a similar lack of concern over its abuse (ie: externalized costs such as pollution), and it is only with restrictions on those freedoms (laws against pollution) that the critical shared resource is preserved for everyone.
So BSD is free as in air, which is "free", but as many people have always said, the GPL is free as in "freedom", which can never be "free".
Don't you read what's left
Actually, most of what I read is directed to me by the compiler or interpreter, as in "symbol dbus not found in line 29 of DistUpgrader.py". Of course, the bigger the header comments, the less likely I am to read it, especially if it's huge ala the Intel License.