About FreeBSD license and philosophy.

M

miemizi001

I want to know why the FreeBSD operating system is not under a copyleft license, because this allows to make the software non libre( free as freedom ), so this is not good at matter of ethics.
( Correct me if I write bad english, I'm not an advanced english speaker because I speak spanish ).
 
This is like asking a religious person why he believes in his god(s). If you have to ask you'll never understand it anyway.

Stop asking such questions. Stop arguing about it. Stop wasting people's time.
 
miemizi001 said:
I want to know why the FreeBSD operating system is not under a copyleft license,
Click to expand...

Based on the license itself, the major concerns were that the copyright owners would get credit for their work, and not be blamed for problems. It's a very Californian attitude, really: "it's cool, dude."

because this allows to make the software non libre( free as freedom ), so this is not good at matter of ethics.
Click to expand...

I find licenses that let you do almost anything more free than those with rules and restrictions.

In any case, the license is what it is, and will not change short of a miracle. (And just to clear up a misconception: only the owner of a license can change a license.) Anyone who disagrees with the license is free to invent their own software under any license they choose, and some have. We are all better off for having choices.
 
miemizi001 said:
I want to know why the FreeBSD operating system is not under a copyleft license, because this allows to make the software non libre( free as freedom ), so this is not good at matter of ethics.
( Correct me if I write bad english, I'm not an advanced english speaker because I speak spanish ).
Click to expand...

Because those developing for the FreeBSD project do not believe that the GPL is appropriate.

Your assertion that it is "not good" that non-free software can be based on FreeBSD is your own opinion. Others, such as myself would much rather that commercial software development utilized well tested open source code so that the money I pay for the commercial software is used to solve problems that Open Source has not already solved, rather than simply re-inventing the wheel due to licensing restrictions.

The GPL idea that all software is free, is, in my opinion, living in fantasy land. There exists specialist niche industries, where the software required is NOT fun to write, or requires large amounts of money to purchase hardware required, or is developed by a business to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace to sustain a business. Without the ability to develop some software as closed source, it would not exist. I'd rather said software used well tested code.
 
The essence of GPL to me has been: "I have a used car that is basically ok and still works and I want to give it away for free and already have someone who wants it. However this other guy who has nothing to do with me or the person wanting that car is making a claim that me giving the car away for free upsets his own chances of selling his own used car in the open market and that's why I should sell my car at a real price and not give it away for free". It's not completely the same kind of situation as with software and the GPL zealotry but behind it is the same impossible way of thinking.

So in essence the BSD license critic here is saying "You can not give away your own possessions for free and with no strings attached because someone else (who has no legal or other powers over the matter) might not like that".
 
Licenses are necessary to protect oneself from greedy people who might take your source, claim it as their own, then sue you for "stealing it".

I see no issue with the BSD license, yeah sure someone might take the code and put in their project, but the burden is still on them to maintain that code especially if they've made it into their own variant. Someone could illegally take BSD code and claim it as their own, but they could do the same thing with the GPL too.

Some proprietary stuff actually turns out pretty good too, like the FreeBSD version of Opera. :)
 
kpa said:
The essence of GPL to me has been: "I have a used car that is basically ok and still works and I want to give it away for free and already have someone who wants it. However this other guy who has nothing to do with me or the person wanting that car is making a claim that me giving the car away for free upsets his own chances of selling his own used car in the open market and that's why I should sell my car at a real price and not give it away for free". It's not completely the same kind of situation as with software and the GPL zealotry but behind it is the same impossible way of thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an accurate analogy: Mr G.P. License is fine with you giving your car away for free; however, the recipient cannot then sell your car to make a profit.

kpa said:
So in essence the BSD license critic here is saying "You can not give away your own possessions for free and with no strings attached because someone else (who has no legal or other powers over the matter) might not like that".
Click to expand...

I think the critic is more accurately saying: "You can give away your own possessions for free to anyone who will not exploit your generosity for monetary gains", which I think is fine, albeit incongruent with capitalism.

The BSD license comports with my own libertarian ideals but GPL, to me, exemplifies everything I love about open source.
 
But what if I really don't care if the guy sells the car for money afterwards, on what grounds could anyone critisise my actions? If I choose to willingly be a "fool" and not put any conditions (other than acknowledging that it was once my car) on the deal is there any power in the world that could come and say "no you can't do that because it's wrong". That is really the heart of the debate imo.
 
Don't get me wrong: like I said in my previous post, the BSD license more closely corresponds with my own libertarian ideals, which comports with your argument that you can give away what you like to who you like without placing any stipulation on what the new owner does with your former possessions. Similarly, you are just as entitled to give away what you like to who you like while placing stipulations on your former possessions; such as, disallowing use for monetary gains. Which, incidentally, also comports with my own beliefs. The debate really shouldn't exist, insofar as one can choose which license they adhere to when either joining existing projects or creating new ones. I suppose this doesn't really help when it comes to such projects that only exist under one license or another, though one could then choose to create their own new project under the license they like.

Personally, as an idealogue, I don't see a problem and in fact prefer the GPL ethos; however, ideologues tend to devalue its appeal.
 
zspider said:
Licenses are necessary to protect oneself from greedy people who might take your source, claim it as their own, then sue you for "stealing it".
Click to expand...

I don't see how a license is going to give you a better protection from someone taking your code and then claiming it as their own than copyright. Also note that without licensing your code it is by default protected under copyright (and you are the owner).

A license is a mechanism to explicitly allow others to use your code (under conditions), and so is unlicensing it which has even fewer strings attached (puts it in the public domain).
 
nanotek said:
The BSD license comports with my own libertarian ideals but GPL, to me, exemplifies everything I love about open source.
Click to expand...
This has gotten rather far afield from "Why does FreeBSD use the license it does?", but I'd like to point out that the BSD license has been going for 30+ years, and the only changes have been to remove requirements (advertising, non-endorsement clauses). This, to me, indicates a license that has been very successful at accomplishing its goals.

The GPL, on the other hand, seems more concerned with spreading the GNU philosophy. I'm not opposed to the GNU philosophy (in fact, I was one of the first people who donated after reading the GNU Manifesto). But the changes to the GPL have generally been to "fix" loopholes in the previous versions that some people felt were being unfairly exploited. See Tivoization. But even the most ardent free software advocates realize that in some cases, the license has to be adapted to the real world, and not the other way around. So gcc and some GNU libraries have less restrictive licenses, because otherwise many companies would simply not use them.

There's a whole industry of "GPL compliance consultants" who will audit your software to make sure you're compliant with every GPL version that your product incorporates. The FSF has every right to pursue companies that use GPL components without following the license requirements - those companies made a choice to use GPL software and should abide by the terms of the license. But companies often discover this long after their product has been designed and shipped. Selection of software (and software license) should happen long before that point.
 
Terry_Kennedy said:
nanotek said:
The BSD license comports with my own libertarian ideals but GPL, to me, exemplifies everything I love about open source.
Click to expand...
This has gotten rather far afield from "Why does FreeBSD use the license it does?", but I'd like to point out that the BSD license has been going for 30+ years, and the only changes have been to remove requirements (advertising, non-endorsement clauses). This, to me, indicates a license that has been very successful at accomplishing its goals.

The GPL, on the other hand, seems more concerned with spreading the GNU philosophy. I'm not opposed to the GNU philosophy (in fact, I was one of the first people who donated after reading the GNU Manifesto). But the changes to the GPL have generally been to "fix" loopholes in the previous versions that some people felt were being unfairly exploited. See Tivoization. But even the most ardent free software advocates realize that in some cases, the license has to be adapted to the real world, and not the other way around. So gcc and some GNU libraries have less restrictive licenses, because otherwise many companies would simply not use them.

There's a whole industry of "GPL compliance consultants" who will audit your software to make sure you're compliant with every GPL version that your product incorporates. The FSF has every right to pursue companies that use GPL components without following the license requirements - those companies made a choice to use GPL software and should abide by the terms of the license. But companies often discover this long after their product has been designed and shipped. Selection of software (and software license) should happen long before that point.
Click to expand...

The measure of success may well be dependent on what goals were sought to be accomplished in the first place; however, as a poster from Slashdot succinctly said:

It's not difficult to see which approach works best: Which OS has more contributors, *BSD or GNU/Linux?
Click to expand...
 
miemizi001 said:
I want to know why the FreeBSD operating system is not under a copyleft license, because this allows to make the software non libre( free as freedom ), so this is not good at matter of ethics.
Click to expand...
May I suggest you revisit the meaning, or at least your own, of "ethics". I am also a fan of the GPL, but have to admit that I am also a fan of the internet. Things like the internet come about by having software available which everyone chooses to use, so that there is universal compatibility. In a world of free enterprise and commercial competition, this can only happen if companies are able to get something good and use it to their own ends without control by others. Such is the case with TCP, which bears the BSD licence, or some version of it. If TCP had been under the GPL, I doubt that Microsoft (as just one example) would have been aboard. Although the GPL has some very good uses, I think the BSD license is very important for the public good and few of us would want to do without it.
 
I think it's ironic. While the "GPL camp" is busy fighting commercial use of software I can't help wonder how many of them pay their rent from the salary they make. At work. Or put differently; one of those "evil" companies.

Now I realize that there are plenty of "weird" companies out there. For example I'm not too fond of both Google and Oracle to name two. But that doesn't automatically make all companies evil. In fact; a lot of things which we use today, whether it's software or hardware, probably wouldn't have existed in the first place if it weren't for (the existence of) companies.

In my opinion it all boils down to telling people "You can't do that without doing something for us in return" knowing full well that a lot of people ("companies"?) will eventually do so anyway (but in secret) because you're still providing the means. Versus basically telling them "Do whatever you want, if you could do something in return it would be highly appreciated".

And I think the latter approach will provide for much more quality (but keep in mind that this is just my assumption / opinion). Simply because the people who do provide something in return do so with a complete different motivation; they provide because they want to, not because they have to.

In my opinion a good example is the official FreeBSD documentation (the handbook) in comparison to the official documentation of the Linux kernel. One seems fully aimed at trying to make it as easy as possible to find the information you need whereas the other is basically one big pile of documentation (with all due respect) where you simply need to find whatever you're looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top