[ossig] "Open-source licensing: BSD is a better model" - article is flawed

[Ditesh <ditesh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The intention of this email is not to start a flamewar but to object to
the non-factual and flawed position taken by the author of the article
"Open-source licensing: BSD is a better
model" (http://www.networkworld.com/supp/2005/opensource/070405-face-off-yes.html).

Consider the second paragraph:

"This statement might seem contradictory, but if you really think about
it, it is true. There are a number of software vendors licensing their
technology under the GPL and thereby benefiting from the GPL's
reciprocity provision. To make certain that source code is available to
anyone, this provision dictates that changes to the code must be given
back to the community. Therefore, a software company choosing to adopt
the GPL benefits from all changes and enhancements made to its code,
regardless of who authored them. This can make the GPL too risky for
enterprise customers."

The last line is not substantiated from the previous four lines. Why
would the GPL be risky for enterprise customers if its great for
developers? The logic does not compute.

The third paragraph:

"Furthermore, software containing embedded GPL-based code must be
licensed under the GPL. Often referred to as the "viral" nature of the
GPL, this makes the license a poor choice for most applications and
impossible for an independent software vendor to license product under a
proprietary license or even another open source license."

You /can/ license under a different license, if the original copyright
holder allows you to do so. For clarification, in the BSD license, you
do not have this issue as you can re-license without the permission of
the original copyright holder. Interestingly, the BSD license undoes the
statutory purpose of copyright which is to have control over your
intellectual rights. If copyright protection is not important to you,
the make the material public domain as the only advantage of the BSD
license over public domain material is attribution which one might
assume is important anyway (that follows from the position that if you
do not respect your intellectual works by protecting it, why would it be
important to have others recognize your work?).

Following on:

"However, in contrast to the GPL the BSD's goal is to pass on control to
those who adopt it, thus making the terms of the BSD license more
pragmatic, generous, flexible and an overall better choice for today's
enterprise customers."

Depends on how you define generous and flexible. If your definition of
generous includes the ability to screw me over by using my work to
compete against me, then please forgive me if I do not subscribe to your
definition.

The next line says it all:

"Corporate IT developers can download and modify open source code under
the BSD license without having to contribute back enhancements that
might be of unique competitive advantage."

Do that and we end up with a parasitic software ecosystem. Not only
that, but it would also work to discourage FOSS software companies in
sharing innovative work as the work may be folded into a competing
proprietary project and the originating company never benefiting from
their sharing. As a case in point, allegedly Microsoft adopted BSD's
TCP/IP stack, - did they ever give back to the community that they took
from? So we have Microsoft improving their software, but the BSD
community not benefiting any other improvements Microsoft would have
made. Would that sort of sharing make sense to a CEO of a technology
company?

Don't these people see that the value we have today came from building
on each other's work and sharing what we have built? It did not come by
hoarding, which is exactly the quality of the BSD license that the
author of the is proclaiming is wonderful.

And the final paragraph:

"The generous terms of the BSD license have allowed open source
communities to flourish under BSD-based projects, often more so than
those licensed under the more restrictive GPL."

Interesting that he claims open source communities flourish under the
BSD licensed projects and not substantiate it when substantiated
evidence indicates the opposite[1]. And yes, the GPL /is/ restrictive,
but it is restrictive to our advantage, as opposed the BSD's freedom
which is only to a parasite's advantage.

[1] http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html

Ditesh


---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message