On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, rwh wrote: > 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. OK, but the two S's in FOSS stand for "source" and "software." Maybe a different term should be used for some of these things: > 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. I don't get it. Are you saying that there is no copyright on PLoS articles, for example? I'm not tracking your idea. I think, again, that you aren't appreciating that putting a copyright on a program, no matter how restrictive, does not restrict uses of that program at all. GPL code can be used by anyone, at any time, for any purpose, without restriction. Period. > 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. Open source has been doing great things for us. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to appreciate this. It's an entirely different software world now, largely because of the FOSS movement. I think the future of FOSS looks very bright. I think it is better that code is not used at all than that it is used within a proprietary program that competes with a decent FOSS option. If it can't make it as FOSS, it isn't all that great and I am happy to see it die. > 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. Why should I care about Cisco's choice? Why would I prefer to have Cisco use my code, without giving anything back to me or to the community, than to have Cisco use some other code? Mike