Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:56:57 +0200
From: Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: misc@openbsd.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom
Message-ID: <20070917235654.GC21548@selene.usta.de>
References: <46ED7A8F.1020304@pro-g.com.tr> <20070916195909.GA18232@stusta.de> <20070916203926.GA17863@schlund.de> <20070916211208.GC5502@thunk.org> <20070916231633.GB10339@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709161632500.24221@asgard.lang.hm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709161632500.24221@asgard.lang.hm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2898
Lines: 58

david@lang.hm wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote:

>> so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?
>> that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.
>
> if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being 
> satisfied with it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on 
> their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature 
> of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear 
> that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire).

Indeed, that argument is often paraphrased in a way that makes it
hard to understand.  What i heard people say is not "If people make
derivative works based on BSD code, they should make them less free
instead of fully free", but it is: "If people caring nothing about
free software in the first place are building their own commercial
systems anyway, they should rather reuse BSD code than hacking up
their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff."

Granted, that's a different approach than taken by the GPL, which
essentially says "... anyway, they deserve to be on their own."

> so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community
> by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why?

Be careful not to confuse "desires" with "legal requirements"...  :-(

Given BSD code, BSD-licensed substantial improvements
make happier than restrictively licensed substantial improvements
make happier than derived non-free closed-source software
make happier than license violations.

Besides, the Linux communities neither qualify as "caring nothing
about free software" nor as "hacking up their own bricolage of
bug-ridden insecure stuff" (hopefully ;-).  So that argument
simply doesn't apply to you.  Probably, that's why Jacob talked
about "morally equivalent to a corporation".

> you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the
> code, but brag about NetApp useing the code.  what makes NetApp ok
> and Linux evil?  many people honestly don't understand the logic
> behind this.  please explain it.

Several people have already explained this nicely; the degree
of happiness may also depend on the level of cooperation and
understanding you expect from the people building on the code,
given their own intentions and goals.  I may well be thankful
towards an enemy just for not killing me, but at the same time
sad about a friend leaving me out in the rain.

( This just being stated in general; i'm not sure what the state
  of discussions in the various Linux communities is just now. )
-
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/