[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: making a non-GPLed module
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001, Omer Zak wrote about "Re: making a non-GPLed module":
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> > Finally some interesting words in the boring what-does-the-GPL-*really*-means
> > saga (this whole thread almost convinced me to eschew the GPL and start using
> > some sort of BSD or X license... People seem to be forgetting that free
> > software was meant to free you from needing to consulting lawyers before you
> > can see/use some software's code...).
>
> No, free software was meant to let the end-user retain the full power he
> has on his system - to allow him to modify the actually-running software
> as needed. To fix Stallman's Printer Driver, in short.
This is getting a bit silly, but...
What you describe is "open source", not "free software". We can have a 100-
message long discussion about the differences between those things...
But the difference is very easy to understand for people who were working on
systems where source was available, it could be changed for personal pleasure,
but it couldn't be shared with others. This is what happened with AT&T's
UNIX source licenses. Why did FreeBSD only come out in the mid 90's, when
BSD was available in 1980? Because they had to rewrite all of AT&T's code,
which they previously just took for granted and built on... A similar thing
happed (to the best of my knowledge) with the BSDI Mosix - they had the source
but they weren't allowed to share it with other people who didn't have source
licenses,
Actually, Stallman himself talks about this: he said (if I remember correctly)
that he *was* able to get a source license, but that he would first have to
sign a nondisclosure agreement, and he refused to do that.
Free software is about slightly more than having source: it's also about being
able to use the source for whatever you want (not just for your personal
pleasure) without needed to have a battery of lawyers explain to you what you
can, and what you can't do (because in that case, you usually don't take risks
and assume that you can't do anything).
> The question of whether to choose GPL or another license eventually boils
> down to the issue whether you want to keep the end-user of your software
> empowered or not.
I think both the GPL and BSD licenses do this. The difference is more about
ideology (GPL believes that *all* software should be free, a good cause by the
way) and "fier"-ness (if you release something under GPL you can't find oneday
somebody else becoming a millinaire from the fruits your work).
BSD license in more about altruism: "I created this software: you can do
anything with it provided you don't pass it off as your own creation.
For all I care, sell modified versions and become a millionaire" (and Linus
Torvalds would add here "while I smoke pot and drop acid" ;))
--
Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Nov 28 2001, 14 Kislev 5762
nyh@math.technion.ac.il |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if
http://nadav.harel.org.il |a woodchuck would chuck wood?
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il