Re: bsd license question

[kbk@shore.net (Kurt B. Kaiser)]

Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com> writes:

> See how it works? More words means less freedom.

I'm very grateful to Richard Stallman and Theo de Raadt for the
contributions they've made to the world.  Certainly they've made a big
difference to me personally.

Both of these gentlemen are persistent, consistent, and uncompromising
in their support of free software.  Both are concerned with
license stability and recognize that changes are problematic.

Their goals are slightly different. 

If you read

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html

you can easily understand the anguish that Stallman experienced during
the Symbolics/MIT-AI episode and understand how the GPL came about.

Excerpt:
"This second Emacs program was `free software' in the modern sense of
the term -- it was part of an explicit political campaign to make
software free. The essence of this campaign was that everybody should
be free to do the things we did in the old days at MIT, working
together on software and working with whomever wanted to work with
us. That is the basis for the free software movement -- the experience
I had, the life that I've lived at the MIT AI lab -- to be working on
human knowledge, and not be standing in the way of anybody's further
using and further disseminating human knowledge."


A BSD license would not have prevented the Symbolics/LMI/MIT-AI
fiasco/disaster, but the GPL would have.  It came from the ashes
of Stallman's bitter experience.


Twenty years ago, when the GPL was written, the concept of giving
software away while making sure it didn't get locked up by a
commercial interest was novel, so a good part of the verbage in the
GPL is explanatory.  Also, it's written in plain English.  So it's
wordier than a concise statement of the 'four freedoms' could be.


The OpenBSD goal is "to make available source code that anyone can use
for ANY PURPOSE with no restrictions."

The GNU goal is make available source code that anyone can use for any
purpose EXCEPT to lock it up, and then extend and distribute
it. 

The BSD license promotes wide use of the software, including
commercial applications.  It carries the risk that the core team can
be bought out and the project taken private, thereby cutting out the
users and even those original developers who weren't 'invited' or who
chose not to go private.

That's what happened to the Lisp machines, and their successor,
OpenGenera (an ironic name!) remains locked up and in very limited
distribution to this day.  (Although if the original CADR code had
been under MIT or BSD style license, at least we would have that.)

http://lispmeister.com/blog/ILC03/OS-Genera.html#writeback

The GPL also promotes use and development, but prohibits a commercial
business model based on proprietary development of the software, because
that's in conflict with the 'fourth freedom'.

There are several companies which are based on dual licensing of the
source (commercial and GPL).  This seems to be a delicate dance and it
remains to be seen how much free development they can attract.

There can be a long debate on which license is more altruistic.  IMHO
the GPL enforces altruism (in that sense it's more restrictive), while
altruism in a BSD licensed project is dependent on the long-term
integrity of the project team.

In any case there's no reason for controversy.  There is a large code
base under both licenses and the choice of license is up to the
project leader.  The choice to contribute to a project is up to the
followers.  We are very fortunate to have code under both types of
licenses, they serve different purposes.

==

I can understand GNU people asking Theo to switch to the GPL (and I
know he would reject that out of hand), but I don't understand why
they would bother asking for dual BSD/GPL licensing.  Maybe just to be
polite?

-- 
KBK