Re: bsd license question

[Jeffrey Lim <jfs.world@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:25:05 -0700, Sancho2k.net Lists
<lists@sancho2k.net> wrote:
> 
> The thing I don't understand is why the GPL stance is that this is a
> terrible and bad thing. This same logic would work against their view of
> freedom; I see the flaw in thinking that "if they have the code, we
> can't have the code too." BSD seems more of "you can have the code, and
> we still have the code, and you make your code into what you want, and
> so do we, and we can go celebrate with a beer later because we all have
> code."
> 

i think perhaps the "GPL phrase or 'tude" ("if they have the
code,...") u use above can be rephrased into "if they take our code
closed-source, we can't have their improvements to our code (if we use
some license other than the GPL) - nor will we get anything for the
monies that they will be making off of our code". No?

Seen from that perspective, i can clearly see why (and the motivations
behind) Richard came up with the GPL. Personally, i think anybody who
chooses the GPL (over other licenses) to license their hard-earned
code will probably have those 2 concerns uppermost in their own mind
as well.

Notice the constant use of the phrase "~our~ code" - it implies a
fierce sense of ownership (this is not a statement to infer "good," or
"no good" here - it is merely an observation). If i were like Richard
(correct me if i am wrong), fiercely anti-commercial (more on that
later), heck i would choose the GPL too. *(But then if i did not
~fully~ trust the FSF, then of course i would restrict my code to a
specfic version of the GPL with which i agreed as well, - instead of
letting it be allowed that my code will fall under future versions of
the GPL as well).

The BSD and GPL licenses originate from different world viewpoints -
that much can be said about this, and so in a sense, they can, and
will never be consolidated, or reconciled together. The BSD says, "i
trust the world to give me the better side of things" (ie. if somebody
takes my source closed-source, and then makes it commercial, i trust
that they will somehow or other contribute back to the parent
source/project. But even if they don't, i'm also ok with that). The
GPL doesn't, and takes active steps (in terms of licensing, and
phrasing) to ensure that the authors/source/project will never get the
shorter end of things. Oh - and it is anti-closed source as well - but
just *not* totally anti-commercial - the commercial selling of
services based on providing services on top of the work is actually
allowed (and probably encouraged), but just not based on the work
~itself~ (ie. u can't say, "pay me $X, and u will get the rights to
use version Y").

So there u have it - the way i see it . The GPL is decidedly
"political" in my own viewpoint, but given the things that have
happened to Richard, i cant see why this shouldnt have turned out the
way it has.

These 2 licenses just work, and operate from different worldviews (and
decidedly different agendas as well) - that's it. Depending on how u
see the world, and how u want others to use your code, u will go one
way or the other.


> Call it personal preference, but this recent discussion makes me
> understand [snip]

yep, this recent discussion has been great for me as well! has
certainly helped to allow me to have more insight into this whole
license issue...

-jf