Re: Re: Free software, proprietary software and Stalin

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 11:21:43PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 
> What I said is not just free s/w (as in free beer).  It's open source.  If
> you want to tweak a linux kernel for your needs, or compile in support for
> something non standard, proprietory (by hacking the linux kernel to
> recognize it) - no problemo.  In fact, you'll be lionized :)
> 
> OTOH, try hacking Win2K to make it compatible with your favorite game (and
> not waiting for M$ to release a patch).  You'll get jumped upon so fast,
> you won't know what hit you.

Are Linux and Win2k the only OSes in the world ? FreeBSD also has all the
desirable properties you describe above.

> 
> On this topic - the Cobalt RAQ and Qube boxen use a rather old version of
> linux (equivalent to redhat 5.1 and 5.2), customized with a kewl web based
> admin panel but otherwise full of holes as a swiss cheese.
> 
> However, Cobalt (IIRC) says that you must download ONLY their patches
> (sendmail, bind etc etc), and are prohibited from upgrading your
> firmware.  You do something on your own (say compiling a new version of
> sendmail / kernel) and your warranty is voided.

If you think Cobalt is broken, don't use them. There is no cause and
effect relationship between BSD license and Cobalt behavior.

This is similar to - if you don't like GPL, don't use GNU stuff argument.
The only difference is that GPL explicitly preaches you not to use the
other stuff. MS EULA doesn't tell you not to use GNU software on it.

> ~How~ do they take GPL'd stuff and lock it into restrictions like
> this?  Besides, their versions are so antiquated, they still ship boxen
> with 2.0.x kernels and 8.8.8 sendmail (that being their latest set of
> "patches").  

Those are just the realities of the commercial world. Unless you've tested
something thoroughly, you can't ship them. Free software is a lot more
forgiving.

Again, I don't see how Cobalt can force you to run sendmail xxx. Even 
MS can't. You're still free to run whatever version you want, but it won't
be *supported*.

> 
> If you are a webhosting co and don't fix these, you run the risk of
> getting yr boxen h4x0red.  If you DO fix 'em, cobalt yanks your warranty.
> 
> Now?  Is ~this~ GPL?
> 

This has nothing to do with GPL vs BSD. Even VA Linux could do this to you.

> >Well said. I'm arguing that GPL, GNU ideals = communism, an extreme
> >and that we should find the middle ground and that middle ground is the
> >BSD license.
> 
> The difference being Arun that RMS is not pointing a gun at your head and
> FORCING you to use GPL'd stuff.  Use BSD licensed products if you wish, or
> a combination of both.

Bang on target again. I can't mix the two. I can point you at any number
of projects on the web, which do not allow GPL'ed code into their source
base.

> Just respect the license each product you use is
> issued under - that's all imho.

Which I do all the time. It's just that I want to prevent more programmer
sweat being wasted (my opinion).

> 
> >I think that BSD licensed software is more practical and benefits the
> >end user more than GPL'ed software, because GPL'ed software tries to
> >force it's philosophy into every form of software it mixes with.
> 
> Not much.  GPL'd software in fact is much easier to interface with other
> softwares, just BECAUSE it's open source.

The word "interfacing" is ambiguous. Same address space is more precise.
GPL doesn't let you do that.

BSD is also open source and is arguably easier to interface with other
software.

> The solution does not change,
> it never changes.  Just the conditions under which the solution is made
> available change.

Yes, the argument is about those conditions.

> 
> >GNU project does and will attempt to sue me if I try to mix their
> >product in proprietary products. At least they say so publicly, though
> >it hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.
> 
> I have never said that.  If, you use GPL - then just GPL the hack you made
> (no more, no less) I don't see why GNU should have a beef.

In a cosmopolitan free software world, using *only* GPL hinders progress.

> 
> >While it honors copyright, the GNU project is opposed to intellectual
> >property and patenting. At least, that is my understanding.
> 
> No.  Patenting means "claiming" ownership.  OTOH, here, your ownership is
> acknowledged tacitly, and you are respected even more because of this.

That definition of intellectual property is not acceptable to me and nor
to courts in any democratic country.

> Suppose I have some skill which I make available free to others - if
> others say "Suresh is kewl at that" (GPL)  then ok.  If ~I~ say "I'm the
> best and I'll help you if you acknowledge that I'm the best when
> you start helping others ..." (BSD) - that's not so kewl.
> 
> rather twisted, but I hope you got me.

No, I didn't get you. Perhaps you can explain it better ?

> 
> >All said and done, I believe that software license is a personal choice.
> >I don't whine with GPL authors to change their license. But I don't mind
> >participating in rational discussion on the issue :)
> 
> Calling either GPL or BSD brain dead is NO solution at all.
> 

I never called GPL brain dead or RMS an evil person. I've always
maintained that GPL is impractical and a hinderance to progress.

	-Arun