Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:27:42 +0200
From: Paul de Weerd <weerd@weirdnet.nl>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul de Weerd <weerd@weirdnet.nl>, "Can E. Acar" <can.acar@pro-g.com.tr>,
       misc@openbsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>,
       Eben Moglen <moglen@softwarefreedom.org>,
       Lawrence Lessig <lessig_from_web@pobox.com>,
       "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@softwarefreedom.org>,
       Matt Norwood <norwood@softwarefreedom.org>
Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom
Message-ID: <20070917192742.GY18186@despair.weirdnet.nl>
References: <46ED7A8F.1020304@pro-g.com.tr> <20070916195909.GA18232@stusta.de> <20070916203926.GA17863@schlund.de> <20070916211351.GB18232@stusta.de> <20070917092019.GC23002@schlund.de> <20070917133845.GJ18232@stusta.de> <20070917151505.GV18186@despair.weirdnet.nl> <20070917153846.GO18232@stusta.de> <20070917180230.GW18186@despair.weirdnet.nl> <20070917183234.GR18232@stusta.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="53TzBEXPl5+8hjUY"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070917183234.GR18232@stusta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4694
Lines: 112


--53TzBEXPl5+8hjUY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
| > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
| > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
| > for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
| > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.
|=20
| GPL has a "share and protect" nature.

Yes, and I was talking about the 'share' part. The protect part is
fine with me, I understand the reasoning behind it. I would not choose
it as my own licence, but that is a matter of personal choice.

| > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
| > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
| > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
| > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
| > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
| > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).
|=20
| If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can=20
| force them to do so.

The exact same is true for the BSD Licence. If a corporation (or
anyone else for that matter) violates the terms of the BSD licence,
courts can make them stop these violations. It's just easier to
violate the GPL, because it has more restrictions. [I'm still not a
lawyer, btw]

Big Evil Corps can however use GPL'ed code without giving back and
without violating the GPL. Also the same as with the BSD licence.

| BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the
| GPL because it allows to take without having to give back.
|=20
| When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale"=
=20
| they are using the wrong licence.

Why ? BSD people give their code away for free. They put hard work
into writing quality software and they have their own ethics or
morale. They do not *demand* getting code back, at least I have not
seen any indication of such demands. So then why are they using the
wrong licence ? I was merely pointing out a matter of mutual respect.

| Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the=20
| goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.

And the people using the BSD licence are completely aware of this [I
assume, again I do not wish to speak for anyone but myself]. At least
I was surprised that fellow open source / free software developers are
not giving back. I've come to expect this from certain companies, but
to me the free and open software community as a whole (here I'm
lumping everyone and their mother together, I know) should have some
respect towards eachother and the licence they choose and acknowledge
the contributions of other parties, giving back as freely as they've
been given. Not because it is required but because it's just right.

The GPL requires I give changes I distribute back under the same
licence. But if I ever were to change such a program, I would not give
these changes back because of this requirement but because it just
makes sense.

| And BTW:
| Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by
| Big Evil Corps. [1]

There's also contributions to OpenBSD from people paid by Big Evil
Corps. The same is true for Net- and FreeBSD. Of course, not all Big
Evil Corps are, in fact, Evil.

| First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether
| their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms
| of the BSD licence.
|=20
| And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and=20
| that giving code back in these cases would be friendly.

Of course, like I said, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to
lose.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--=20
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                =20

--53TzBEXPl5+8hjUY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (OpenBSD)

iD8DBQFG7tUumw12l2HFcK0RAm5cAJ9KfEYgqarQZDdMlCDlRjfai9Zz7wCdG+7L
ORIlb7SD7MpYWgMtqW8x3mA=
=iLGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--53TzBEXPl5+8hjUY--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/