[ossig] Re: [myoss] "Open-source licensing: BSD is a better model" - articleis NOT flawed

[Dinesh Nair <dinesh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i've let the mandatory 24 hour period pass, before i respond to drivel. :)

On 07/08/05 17:38 Ditesh said the following:

> 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.

it does, considering that in a typical enterprise today there's a mix of 
licensing regimes because enterprises pick technology acquisitions on 
multiple factors including price, fit for purpose, merit and legacy 
integration issues. the viral clause of the gpl can case inconsistencies 
which are not able to be resolved cleanly. in essence, by taking away the 
freedom to decide what needs to be done, it hobbles enterprises in the 
longer run.

> You /can/ license under a different license, if the original copyright
> holder allows you to do so. For clarification, in the BSD license, you

you can ? iirc, the GPL includes a clause mandating that all derivative 
works are also licensed under the GPL. this is the very viral clause we're 
talking about.

> 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

this is pure FUD and totally infactual. no where in the BSD license or in 
copyright law does it allow a user/receiver of BSD software to relicense 
the software or to take over the copyrights. the software is /still/ BSD 
licensed and /still/ owned by the copyright holders. all the BSD license 
gives is the right to take it closed, to mix other closed (and GPL) 
software into the derivative mix and to essentially use it in any form the 
receiver sees fit. freedom.

> 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.

ok, if you believe that your software is fragile and that without adequate 
protection it will wither away and die, by all means use the GPL. however, 
software licensed under the BSD has shown longevity and a lack of fragility 
inspite of claims by GPL apologists to the contrary. it is this confidence 
in the quality and value of the software which allows developers to 
comfortably choose the BSD, knowing that something good will continue to 
live on, improve and flourish.

> Do that and we end up with a parasitic software ecosystem. Not only

promises, promises. this has been the stale mantra of the GPL apologists. 
unfortunately for them, it hasnt yet become true which makes this assertion 
ring very, very hollow. in spite of over two decades of the BSD license, 
software under this license has flourished and inspired other software from 
it. it has far from died. in fact, the BSD operating systems have had a 
longer lifespan than linux, and without the viral protections, has not yet 
gone away.

> 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

that microsoft took it has not diminished anything from it. in fact, in 
spite of this, the TCP/IP stack has flourished under the BSD stewardship 
leading us to IPv6 (whose base development platform is still FreeBSD) as 
well as the SCTP protocol, also with FreeBSD as a base development 
platform. it's a good case in point that BSD software will not die and is 
robust enough to survive such taking.

it's also another thing that BSD software has lived thru and passed with 
flying colours more trials than GPL software. every single incident of 
"stealing" and "borrowing" of BSD source without return of improvements is 
testament to this fact. the more examples of "stealing/borrowing" which are 
given, the more it strengthens the basis upon which this license is picked. 
we know it can survive, therefore we are not worried.

heck, the taking is /encouraged/ in order to assure a consistent 
implementation of protocols and standards into all manner of software. BSD 
licensed software tries to do away with the need to reinvent the wheel due 
to religious licensing reasons, thus increasing productivity, generating 
more innovation and at the same time assuring a consistent implementation 
of standards. only the introduction of religious and political beliefs into 
the software development process will stifle such goals.

> 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.

an attempt at misdirection perhaps ? how can one accuse a developer who 
releases software under the BSD license as a hoarder ? he's in fact given 
up more rights than any other license gives out, in spite of licenses which 
self-proclaim themselves to be free. i'd posit that a developer who does 
this is more noble than most, for he gives without requiring anything in 
return and he does it both willingly and with a pure intention. he does not 
/expect/ anything in return, and that is the hallmark of a pure man (or 
woman, as the case may be).

> Interesting that he claims open source communities flourish under the
> BSD licensed projects and not substantiate it when substantiated

how then would you explain the success of the following projects, just to 
name a few, all of which are released under a BSD or BSD-type license:

{Free,Net,Open}BSD
Apache
PHP
Python

going by the argument of the GPL apologists that thieves will plunder the 
source and the projects will wither away and die without protection, their 
existence and continued success is an anathema to this false notion. at the 
core of it, software of quality and value will continue to progress because 
of the very value it gives to its developers and users. it doesnt need to 
be protected for it will survive a lot.

sadly, many think that their software is weak and fragile, thus they choose 
to artificially protect it in a manner which can be stifling for its use in 
all segments of the computing sphere. if they fear the fragility of their 
work, then please by all means use whatever form of protection they desire. 
dont, however, use that fear to try to convince others who do not create 
fragile software without longevity.

-- 
Regards,                           /\_/\   "All dogs go to heaven."
dinesh@alphaque.com                (0 0)    http://www.alphaque.com/
+==========================----oOO--(_)--OOo----==========================+
| for a in past present future; do                                        |
|   for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do   |
|   echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b."  |
| done; done                                                              |
+=========================================================================+

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