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

[Ditesh <ditesh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 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 

With the BSD, the possibility that you end up with a situation where all
the enterprises take but nobody returns to the community is very real.
This would be counter productive to sustaining the FOSS momentum.

Note the explosion of GPL'ed software in the 1990's after the crafting
of the license. Note that while the same growth opportunities were
available for the BSD license, the adoption of the GPL by individuals
and enterprises completely dwarfed the BSD license.

Why? I cannot substantiate it with data but I can provide a possible
hypothesis - with the BSD, people take and do not give back to the
community. With the GPL, such a situation cannot exist and therefore a
positive feedback cycle helps build the community.

> freedom to decide what needs to be done, it hobbles enterprises in the 
> longer run.

Care to substantiate this?

> > 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.

You can if the license holder allows you to do so, ala dual licensing.

> > 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 

You are right, I was mistaken here.

> 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, 

Given growth explosion and dominance of copyleft licensed software and
not other FOSS licenses, one would imagine that the growth would be at
the cost of other FOSS licenses.

> 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 

Wouldn't the quality of the software be dependent on the developer and
not on the license?

You are skirting the issue here - BSD, like public domain work, will not
disappear from the marketplace. I clearly see that, as you do. But I'm
pointing out that given that there is no incentive for enterprises to
contribute back, there is a real chance that it will also not grow as
fast as copylefted software.

To give you an example, look at Linux. If it was BSD licensed, would the
IBM's of the world close and co-opt it? With the GPL license,
they /wouldn't/ be able to do so, even if they wanted 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 

You are twisting my words. I'm not saying that BSD licensed software
can't flourish, all I'm pointing out is that there is /less/ reason for
it to flourish and all evidence points to more activity happening in the
copylefted software ecosystem.

> > 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 

You have lost any possible improvements Microsoft may have made to the
stack.

> 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 

Well, because it's older. Obviously it would have lived through more
trials. That's a truism.

> "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.

We /are/ worried that opportunists will take from our community and not
give back. That's the reason we fight.

> heck, the taking is /encouraged/ in order to assure a consistent 
> implementation of protocols and standards into all manner of software. BSD 

Consistent? You call Microsoft's implementation of the BSD TCP/IP stack
consistent?

> 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.

Or as many companies have found out, you could participate in copylefted
licensing and benefit from it. If anybody should have recreated the
wheel, it would be IBM but they didn't as they didn't see a conflict in
licensing issues with the GPL'ed software they are contributing and
selling.

> 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 

No, the developer is not a hoarder. But those using his BSD licensed
software are not stopped from hoarding, and it would seem that BSD
license promoters such as yourself encourage it.

> > 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:

More then 50% of all FOSS software in a Linux system are GPL'ed. MIT
type licenses account for less then 10%. Why? One would assume that the
more "liberal" licenses would be more popular if they are encourage
flourishing.

> 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 

Well thieves are plundering at the source, that's not an argument but
statement of fact (unless you can show me commit logs from Redmond to
the BSD TCP stack[1]).

Compare the popularity of BSD's vs Linux. If BSD indeed encouraged
participation over the GPL, then why has Linux participation from
companies eclipsed the combined forces of the BSD?

> 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 

We do not think software is weak and fragile. But the licensing can be
and which is why we need to use a strong license to protect our
work/rights. Which is why even non FSF folk recommend the use of the GPL
for FOSS licensing[2].

[1] That would make a good wall poster.
[2] http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html

Ditesh


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