What GPL really does, is preserving the freedom to share, modify, sell etc etc sourcecode.


Not at all, there are a lot of restrictions regarding the use of the sourcecode. The main thing that GPL promotes is GPL itself.

And if that is not freedom, what is?


BSD is freedom for sourcecode/developers. You can freely use BSD code without having to give up any rights of your own sourcecode. That's freedom, if you ask me.

And if that is not freedom, what is? The GPL choice is a really good choice, because it helps freedom remain free. Not letting 'opensource'code wind up in MS TCP/IP stack.


If the IP source was not BSD-licensed, the internet would probably not have spread this quickly, or it might never have become what we know as the internet today. The BSD-licensed IP code made it easy for any OS developer to create a reliable and compatible IP stack for their OS. GPL would have opposed this development, because companies such as MS would much rather develop IP themselves, or not use it at all, than give away their sourcecode for free. They might aswell close business right away.
So for things like IP, yes BSD was an excellent choice. GPL would have limited IP to GPL-OSes only, and people developing their own.

Oh, and just let me tell you that Microsoft does not have monopoly. Nor has intel monpoly on x86. Just look at GNU/Linux and AMD.


Over 95% of all computer users use Microsoft software, and over 95% of all computers are based on x86 (I never said they had to be Intel, just x86 in itself). This is what is commonly known as a monopoly, regardless of whether there are alternatives or not.

I use GNU because of the freedom I get. Not because I hate MS or wan't to destroy their so-called "monopoly".


I use FreeBSD, because I find the GPL too viral and restrictive, I want freedom, else I don't need 'opensource' at all.

Besides, I would never touch BSD because I oppose the BSD License. Allright, it might be approved by the OSI, but OpenSource does not qualify giving freedom. Just look at the license of QMail. Its opensource. Yet it does not give you any hacking freedom.


What's wrong with the BSD license? What is 'hacking freedom'?
Posted on 2004-02-15 16:10:15 by Henk-Jan
no, GPL makes other code GPL... if that's your definition of free then you'd have loved the "Third Reich".

BSD (MIT style) license offers true freedom for any party involved to use the code as they see fit. The only thing that I know that's more free than MIT style licensing is 'public domain'.


GPL does not force you to do anything. Let me take an example; If you wan't to build GUI applications, GTK+ is a really good choice. That is LGPL'd code. Meaning that you can build proprietary software off GTK. Then you can do whatever you wan't with that sourcecode you just wrote. But however if you use already GPL'd code, whats wrong with giving back code? Use it, share or don't use it and don't share. Aint tougher that that!

and just for the sake of it, I am as far away from facism/nazism that you can get!



Not at all, there are a lot of restrictions regarding the use of the sourcecode. The main thing that GPL promotes is GPL itself.


Wrong. The main thing GPL promotes is freedom. Look a bit above, and see my text about LGPL. Then you will see that you are wrong. Ever crucial parts like gnu c libary is LGPL. And even Microsoft has a GPL'd product.

BSD is freedom for sourcecode/developers. You can freely use BSD code without having to give up any rights of your own sourcecode. That's freedom, if you ask me.


BSD is freedom untill some company incorparates your code into its proprietary project without ever recognizing the freedom it just exploited.

If the IP source was not BSD-licensed, the internet would probably not have spread this quickly, or it might never have become what we know as the internet today. The BSD-licensed IP code made it easy for any OS developer to create a reliable and compatible IP stack for their OS. GPL would have opposed this development, because companies such as MS would much rather develop IP themselves, or not use it at all, than give away their sourcecode for free. They might aswell close business right away.
So for things like IP, yes BSD was an excellent choice. GPL would have limited IP to GPL-OSes only, and people developing their own.


The TCP/IP stack thig was just an example. As I don't have much time right now, I'll comment this tomorrow.

Over 95% of all computer users use Microsoft software, and over 95% of all computers are based on x86 (I never said they had to be Intel, just x86 in itself). This is what is commonly known as a monopoly, regardless of whether there are alternatives or not.


Sorry my friend, you have a general misconseption of the term monopoly.

I use FreeBSD, because I find the GPL too viral and restrictive, I want freedom, else I don't need 'opensource' at all.


Oh, but don't forget you are using "evil viral licensed" code every day at freebsd. Along with a idiotic license. As said, I'll comment on this tomorrow.

What's wrong with the BSD license? What is 'hacking freedom'?


I'll comment later. Hacking freedom == Beeing able to modify free software
Posted on 2004-02-15 16:28:30 by Kriss
But however if you use already GPL'd code, whats wrong with giving back code? Use it, share or don't use it and don't share.


Where is the "use it and don't share" option?
If I want to sell my products, I can't go around giving the sourcecode away for free, because then my competitors will compile it and sell it for less, so they put me out of business with my own product. I spent time and money on research and development, they did not.
Besides, you're already backing down to the LGPL, while we were discussing the GPL. Tell me, if the GPL is so great and open and free and everything, why does LGPL even exist?

BSD is freedom untill some company incorparates your code into its proprietary project without ever recognizing the freedom it just exploited.


If I didn't want them to do that, I would not have released the code as BSD, would I? So this is a rather useless argument.
Besides, who will guarantee me that others won't use my GPL code in proprietary projects? How can I check, and what can I do if I ever find out? After all, my code didn't make me enough money to afford a decent team of attourneys.

Sorry my friend, you have a general misconseption of the term monopoly.


Me and the rest of the world, right? Perhaps you are the one who's wrong here. I thought the fact that MS had a monopoly was pretty much common knowledge anyway.

Hacking freedom == Beeing able to modify free software


BSD allows that, what's your point?
Posted on 2004-02-15 16:42:57 by Henk-Jan



GPL does not force you to do anything. Let me take an example; If you wan't to build GUI applications, GTK+ is a really good choice. That is LGPL'd code. Meaning that you can build proprietary software off GTK. Then you can do whatever you wan't with that sourcecode you just wrote. But however if you use already GPL'd code, whats wrong with giving back code? Use it, share or don't use it and don't share. Aint tougher that that!

and just for the sake of it, I am as far away from facism/nazism that you can get!


Maybe you should actually read the license once? GPL forces a lot of things.


Wrong. The main thing GPL promotes is freedom. Look a bit above, and see my text about LGPL. Then you will see that you are wrong. Ever crucial parts like gnu c libary is LGPL. And even Microsoft has a GPL'd product.



yes, the freedom to be GPL. The freedom to think just like me, be like me, is it 1984 already.... (just don't static compile right?)


BSD is freedom untill some company incorparates your code into its proprietary project without ever recognizing the freedom it just exploited.



what part of 'freedom' don't you understand? If you don't wish your code to be used by certain other parties then don't allow them to do so via your license, that is your right as author. Just don't call it 'free' then, because it isn't. For that matter even BSD/MIT isn't free because it requires author recognition, but it's such a small, logical price that most people will agree that it comes closest to true 'freedom' of all licenses, barring public domain.


Sorry my friend, you have a general misconseption of the term monopoly.



No, he has a legal representation of a monopoly in mind, I personally don't agree with it either but that still doesn't make it go away;
Posted on 2004-02-15 16:50:06 by Hiroshimator
I personally don't agree with it either but that still doesn't make it go away;


I never said I agreed with it either... Personally I see it as a "monopoly by default". If you are the only one offering a certain kind of product, or if your competition is very weak, then automatically people will buy your product, and you can't help but get a monopoly. Why should your company be punished for offering the customers what they want? But that's another discussion.
Posted on 2004-02-15 17:33:10 by Henk-Jan
IBM just uses linux because some people are stupid enough to work on the OS without IBM having to pay them, so it's simply cheaper than developing their own OSes.


Oh, give me a break. IBM has 40+ years of experience in writing very complex OSes for the System/360-370-390 mainframes. They have thousands of in-house systems programmers. Linux is a toy compared to MVS. If you don't think they could design and code a "Linux clone" from scratch in about a week, perhaps you better think again.

:)
Posted on 2004-02-15 19:47:01 by S/390
They have thousands of in-house systems programmers. Linux is a toy compared to MVS. If you don't think they could design and code a "Linux clone" from scratch in about a week, perhaps you better think again.


I didn't say they couldn't, I just said it was cheaper not to. So I don't see what your point is. You don't like what I say, but can't find anything to actually disagree on?
Posted on 2004-02-16 01:45:58 by Henk-Jan
about windows source code:
IMHO the time of win32 is almost end, The NT/2K sources code is out the microsoft safe because of silent agreement of MS. Certainly MS ppl wants to assure that independent programmers can wring out the 110% power of this not so young platform as is MS_WIN to be develope as an open source like Linux the most serious oponent and catch the focus on Windows. It is just a trick and an advertisement campaign.

thats why the news are on the :http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4253584/


MS wants to save the best market position for all the time also as well as do nothing by own hand.
The MS's Gold Think is: MS should do nothing, they(we programmers) do it for you(all the ppl) for free and with pleasure. There is no need to torment(MS -consultants).


with friendly regards,
harry
Posted on 2004-02-16 05:43:07 by HarryTuttle
I'm wondering if the source code leak might not proove the best thing that ever happened to Microsoft. First of all it publicizes the exchange program in a way they were never capable of doing, second it kills any chance of Windows clones and third it makes Microsoft a victim.

Microsoft has been villianized as a company that will not release it's proprietary technology under any circumstances, something that though it makes no difference to me, some obviously have a problem with. For the average user the lies spread about them on the NET by both the Linux community and those who just hate success were not contradicted and taken to be true. Maybe it will shed some light on the fact that though they protect their shareholders rights to the software that generates their income, they have been known to be open from time to time.

The Windows clones have to be built behind a chinese wall, that is that the authors must proove that they could not have had an opportunity to see the actual Windows source. That is all out the proverbial window right now, if it can be prooven that one person on a team has downloaded the source code then it is a copyright infringement to write a clone. The concept of the chinese wall was used to great effect by Phoenix BIOS in the early days of the PC, all of the developpers were forced to sign affidavits that they had not seen any source code for the IBM BIOS before they could work on the project. If it had not been done that way there would have been a lawsuit and IBM would have won, Phoenix would have been shut down and the clone market would not exist. This may happen with Windows now, the internet makes it much easier to disseminate the files and all Microsoft needs to proove is that one person working on one peice of the code that relates to the leaked source downloaded (not examined just downloaded) the files, the whole project is dead.

Microsoft has had a bad time of it. Nobody likes success, when a band is having trouble selling 10 CDs we all say they are "cutting edge" but if they suddenly start selling 5 million, they have sold out and gone commercial. The same can be said for Microsoft, they have been the target of every hate mongerer and outright lie that anyone can think of and everybody shrugs it off because in reality we are all jealous of their success. Who wouldn't like to have Bill's Billions, if you say you wouldn't then you either understand the resposibility that entails or you're lying. If you understand the responsibility then you should have said yes anyway. Perhaps with them as the victim for a change people will attempt to understand what forces drive the decisions they make - greed, not the greed of Bill Gates but the greed of all of the billions of dollars of retirement funds that are invested in the company and expect yeild performance, yes maybe even your retirement fund.

GPL sucks, I would never use it for the exact reasons specified by Hiro. Also why would I attach rules to my code. If I give it away for free then it is free, if I supply the source then you can use it. If you use it in a commercial application just mention that I wrote it and everything is fine. Free means free, not free for this but you can't use it for that and you have to pay for it under these circumstances and you have to publish your source if you use my source, GPL is a lie and always will be.
Posted on 2004-02-16 06:31:12 by donkey
Who wouldn't like to have Bill's Billions


Is the 'billion' actually named after Bill Gates? :)
Posted on 2004-02-16 07:09:53 by Henk-Jan



Is the 'billion' actually named after Bill Gates? :)


No, not actually but he bought the rights to the word :grin:

Billions ? Microsoft Corporation
Posted on 2004-02-16 07:45:13 by donkey
I thought Bill'ion was short for "Bill's Minion" :grin:

- we are many, we are Legion -
Posted on 2004-02-16 09:29:29 by Hiroshimator
Henk-Jan:

Maybe you should actually read the license once? GPL forces a lot of things.


I have read the GPL. And several litterature concering it. So you could say I know what I'm talking about. GPL forces you to keep the freedom intact. And I don't see anything wrong with that at all!

Where is the "use it and don't share" option?
If I want to sell my products, I can't go around giving the sourcecode away for free, because then my competitors will compile it and sell it for less, so they put me out of business with my own product. I spent time and money on research and development, they did not.
Besides, you're already backing down to the LGPL, while we were discussing the GPL. Tell me, if the GPL is so great and open and free and everything, why does LGPL even exist?


Take Redhat as an example. They are doing just fine, even though they are in the Free/Opensource software biz. What they make the real money from, is support. And even though if you license your software under BSD, your competitors can import your work into their software. But in the end, you must understand that I'm not trying to advocate GPL et al. as a general solution.

And on the GPL question, you asked me "Tell me, if the GPL is so great and open and free and everything, why does LGPL even exist?". Look at the last sentance I wrote, it covers that question.

If I didn't want them to do that, I would not have released the code as BSD, would I? So this is a rather useless argument.
Besides, who will guarantee me that others won't use my GPL code in proprietary projects? How can I check, and what can I do if I ever find out? After all, my code didn't make me enough money to afford a decent team of attourneys.


Well, many people write code for fun. And then what is wrong with writing some free code and earn money off eg. support?

And, FSF will provide you with legal help. Just look at the freecraft incident. The laweyrs where already paid for, but the project leader decided not to take it to cours.

Me and the rest of the world, right? Perhaps you are the one who's wrong here. I thought the fact that MS had a monopoly was pretty much common knowledge anyway.


From dict.org
" Monopoly \Mo*nop"o*ly\, n.; pl. Monopolies.
1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; "

Note the word "exclusive". If that was the case, the only OS that would exist would be MS Windows if you were correct.


BSD allows that, what's your point?


Well, I was a bit short there - And I was using Qmail as an example of how loose "opensource" can be. What I should have written was "Hacking freedom == Beeing able to modify free software and the right to share it with your peers".

Hiro:

Maybe you should actually read the license once? GPL forces a lot of things.


Useless argument. My posts should indicate that I have knowledge about the license.

yes, the freedom to be GPL. The freedom to think just like me, be like me, is it 1984 already.... (just don't static compile right?)


GPL (as I've already said before) makes freedom remain free. And that "freedom" you're talking about has nothing to do with the case here. If you don't like GPL et al. steer away from it. Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code. Its there for you if you want it. If not, well ok to bad.

what part of 'freedom' don't you understand? If you don't wish your code to be used by certain other parties then don't allow them to do so via your license, that is your right as author. Just don't call it 'free' then, because it isn't. For that matter even BSD/MIT isn't free because it requires author recognition, but it's such a small, logical price that most people will agree that it comes closest to true 'freedom' of all licenses, barring public domain.


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#TOCAboutFreeSoftware

Read some of those texts.

No, he has a legal representation of a monopoly in mind, I personally don't agree with it either but that still doesn't make it go away;


I've put up the true capitalistic definiton of 'monopoly' and even consulted with an eqonomist and she said you was wrong.
Posted on 2004-02-16 10:58:03 by Kriss
The TCP/IP stack thig was just an example. As I don't have much time right now, I'll comment this tomorrow.


What I mean was that I was using the TCP/IP stack-issue an a example of how bad BSD licensed code could go. Microsoft incorporated it into their software. And I don't care about how much work it saved MS, because I'm quite shure it could have written one of its own. But it didn't and chose to use opensource code!
Get it? So don't bla bla about how big or small the internet could be

Oh, but don't forget you are using "evil viral licensed" code every day at freebsd. Along with a idiotic license. As said, I'll comment on this tomorrow.


As you use FreeBSD you are using some GNU software. Without strings attached. The gcc does not require you to GPL work that is has handeled. IMO that's part of the GNU freedom.
Posted on 2004-02-16 11:04:50 by Kriss
What they make the real money from, is support.


That's nice, but the kind of software I'm working on cannot be financed by support alone, I guess OSes are one of the few exceptions where it can work (although there are several distros in financial trouble, like Mandrake for example).

And even though if you license your software under BSD, your competitors can import your work into their software.


Obviously, which is why I generally don't use GPL, BSD or any other opensource license on my code.

Well, many people write code for fun. And then what is wrong with writing some free code and earn money off eg. support?


There's nothing wrong with that, and GPL is not the only license allowing that, BSD does it aswell, among others.
The thing that's wrong is people like ESR demanding that Sun opensources Java, and MS opensources Windows etc. And apparently some linux-guy thought it would be nice to steal the Windows-source and 'opensource' it. That's what's wrong.

Note the word "exclusive". If that was the case, the only OS that would exist would be MS Windows if you were correct.


Depends on how you look at it. MS is the only one that can sell Windows (or anything Windows-compatible). Besides, in the legal sense, MS is a monopoly anyway. So it's useless to argue it. MS was convicted as taking advantage of a monopoly. How can that happen if they don't have a monopoly first?

What I should have written was "Hacking freedom == Beeing able to modify free software and the right to share it with your peers".


And where exactly does the BSD license forbid this?

Useless argument. My posts should indicate that I have knowledge about the license.


On the contrary, GPL poses several restrictions, yet you claim it gives absolute freedom. Look up freedom at dict.org, I'm sure it will say something about not having restrictions. So you contradict the GPL, which could be interpreted as lack of knowledge.

Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code.


People like ESR, RMS and many other 'advocates' really give me the feeling that I'm being forced to use GPL'ed code.
I hope they realize it will destroy the software industry as we know it. This is the main reason why I am against it. Making software is not free. In an all-GPL world, it is impossible to ask money for software itself (and I mean in practice, nobody is going to buy it from me if they can get it for free elsewhere, even though in theory I can still ask money), which is unacceptable to me. If it costs money to make, it should cost money to use. How else can you make it?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philo...outFreeSoftware

Read some of those texts.


And may I recommend "Mein Kampf" to you? You'll probably appreciate it. You seem to like it when people have no rights and have to have the same opinion.

I've put up the true capitalistic definiton of 'monopoly' and even consulted with an eqonomist and she said you was wrong.


Oh yea? Well I read it on the internet!
http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/05/technology/microsoft_finding/
Posted on 2004-02-16 11:18:08 by Henk-Jan
What I mean was that I was using the TCP/IP stack-issue an a example of how bad BSD licensed code could go. Microsoft incorporated it into their software.


What's bad about that? Isn't it good that MS software has IP aswell? So you can connect MS OSes with others?
Besides I'm pretty sure that the BSD people realized this possibility before they released the code. In fact, I am quite sure that this is exactly the reason WHY they released the sourcecode. They WANTED other people to use it.

And I don't care about how much work it saved MS, because I'm quite shure it could have written one of its own. But it didn't and chose to use opensource code!
Get it? So don't bla bla about how big or small the internet could be


I think it's a very interesting issue actually... What if everyone made their own IP? What if each would have slight incompatibilities, so some OSes couldn't perform some tasks with some other OSes?
What if MS chose not to use IP at all, but develop their own protocol instead? Imagine that, 95% of all computers on the internet today... they would NOT be on the internet... but on their own network instead.


As you use FreeBSD you are using some GNU software. Without strings attached. The gcc does not require you to GPL work that is has handeled. IMO that's part of the GNU freedom.


I've never heard of any software that put restrictions on the data you generate with it.
Not even Visual Studio does that... Amazing no!?
Besides, gcc likes to spam itself into every object file. I hate that. Is that freedom?
Posted on 2004-02-16 11:27:30 by Henk-Jan

On the contrary, GPL poses several restrictions, yet you claim it gives absolute freedom. Look up freedom at dict.org, I'm sure it will say something about not having restrictions. So you contradict the GPL, which could be interpreted as lack of knowledge.

Please,,, quote a few of these restictions to us blind zealots who know nothing about GPL, freedom and are oblivous to knowlegde...


I hope they realize it will destroy the software industry as we know it. This is the main reason why I am against it. Making software is not free.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: ????????? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Weird, how come the software I make doesn't cost money? Making software is free! (sitting as a monkey as an element of an 500x500 matrix of coding monkeys taking space and time in an office building from 9 to 5 might not be but, making the software doesn't cost in it self)
So what? Are you afaid of changes? In the history book we see that a lot of things has changed, or maybe you think it was a disaster that some claim the world is round - after all as we *then* knew the world it was flat... (sure some said "if we say the world is tound then it's the end to the world as we know it")


And may I recommend "Mein Kampf" to you? You'll probably appreciate it. You seem to like it when people have no rights and have to have the same opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what does reading a great manipulator's (he did succeed in manipulate a lot of people, that requires some skills, don't get me wrong - I donnot share his nazi values... ) book have anything with liking/approving the ideas in it? (after all you must think a thought before you can reject it).
But maybe I'm stupid, but you seem to "know" that GPL, opensource, etc is evil and that all should "know" so too... :notsure:


I've never heard of any software that put restrictions on the data you generate with it.
Not even Visual Studio does that... Amazing no!?
Besides, gcc likes to spam itself into every object file. I hate that. Is that freedom?

Well, CMIfIW (correct me if I'm wrong), but doesn't MS prohibit the compilers to output executable code for any other OS than MS's Windows? (isn't that restricting the data you generate with it?)
iirc, masm "tags" it's output to let the world know it was compiled with masm version x? (is that spamming it self?)
Posted on 2004-02-16 11:55:07 by scientica
Please,,, quote a few of these restictions to us blind zealots who know nothing about GPL, freedom and are oblivous to knowlegde...


http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Plenty of restrictions listed there.
Most importantly:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.


Making software is free!


Not at all. Time itself is not free. Then there's the hardware and software required for making software, the electricity... Food and shelter for the programmers... Ofcourse the programmers also need an education, and research needs to be done in the area that the software is aimed at. Everything in this world costs money. Do you also go to the doctor and then say "Well you just looked at me, you didn't actually produce anything tangible, looking is free, I will not pay you"?

So what? Are you afaid of changes?


I am against changes for the worse. I have had a very expensive education, and I want to be able to earn back the money it cost me, and then make enough money to support a decent standard of living for me and my family. Giving away my sourcecode for free does not help me with that in any way. It would only mean that I have to find another area of work, for which I do not have a high education. See the problem yet?

Well, CMIfIW (correct me if I'm wrong), but doesn't MS prohibit the compilers to output executable code for any other OS than MS's Windows? (isn't that restricting the data you generate with it?)


I have never heard of such a thing. At least provide proof for such weird statements, else I see no reason to believe it.

iirc, masm "tags" it's output to let the world know it was compiled with masm version x? (is that spamming it self?)


Firstly, MASM assembles, it doesn't compile. Secondly, last time I looked, there was no such thing there. Again, proof please.
Posted on 2004-02-16 12:17:38 by Henk-Jan
Originally posted by Kriss
Useless argument. My posts should indicate that I have knowledge about the license.

GPL (as I've already said before) makes freedom remain free. And that "freedom" you're talking about has nothing to do with the case here. If you don't like GPL et al. steer away from it. Nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code. Its there for you if you want it. If not, well ok to bad.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#TOCAboutFreeSoftware
Read some of those texts.
I've put up the true capitalistic definiton of 'monopoly' and even consulted with an eqonomist and she said you was wrong.


I've read the GPL, LGPL and all RMS' propaganda about 'freedom' and I don't agree with his choice of the words: 'free' and 'freedom'. GPL isn't free, it imposes several restrictions on the source code. Just like slaves in the 19th century weren't free either, they were free to live but there were various restrictions imposed on their way of life. Wether or not you can recite the GPL backwards will not contribute to your understanding of the meaning of the concept of 'freedom'. RMS not being a legal or other official entity has to accept the wordly view of that concept, not something he comes up with. (unless he buys an island somewhere and calls himself 'King Richard' of course :grin: )

GPL sure has its purpose, but to label it 'free' would be false.

As for the 'monopoly', if a court decides that what we see as pink is in reality red then the legal definition for it is red, regardless of what you can find in any dictionary. Welcome to the real world and its distinction between common speak and legal speak.
Posted on 2004-02-16 12:51:51 by Hiroshimator
...forces you to keep the freedom...


Isn't that a self defeating statement?
If it forces you to do something, then you are not free to do the opposite.

Mirno
Posted on 2004-02-16 12:52:40 by Mirno