Mike Miller wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, rwh wrote: > >> I'm afraid that I don't accept that GPL is socially optimal to BSD. If >> the GPL license inhibits the use of the code I'd rather use BSD, and >> if someone grabs my code and finds a way to make a buck off it, more >> power to them. > > I think "more power to them" is a good way of putting it. If we produce > code that can be used within proprietary, binaries-only software, then > we are aiding the promoters of the proprietary model -- empowering them > -- and this is not good for the FOSS movement. The GPL is better for > FOSS than is the BSD license because of this. > My first point was simply that FOSS as a movement extends far beyond source code. There are groups trying to free up research (PloS), gene patents (BiOS), music, art & literature (Creative Commons), source code (GPL, BSD, Apache), etc. If someone truly believes in the FOSS movement, it is inconsistent to say that it is preferable to encumber IP in source with something like GPL and then turn around and give away IP unencumbered simply because one is covered by a copyright and the other by a patent. My second point is that protecting code for the sake of protecting code is meaningless if it means that the code doesn't get used. I would argue that the really interesting changes are being driven by open standards rather than open source. Offhand I can't think of anything licensed under GPL that is sufficiently complex that the GPL can't be broken simply by producing a new implementation to the published interface specifications; especially by organizations with the resources of a MS, Apple, or Cisco. Look at how quickly Cisco switched from Linux to VxWorks (a proprietary embedded OS) when they were forced to release the Linux source they were using in the WRT54G access points? They obviously decided that paying Wind Rivers' royalty was 'cheaper' than using a GPL product. --rick