[Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Joe Greco]

> Joe Greco [jgreco at ns.sol.net] wrote:
> > Selling a product isn't disallowed under either GPL or BSD style licenses.
> > The really big difference is that you can't take GPL'd code, change it, and
> > sell or distribute it without distributing your changes (an
> > oversimplification, but anyways...) whereas with a true free software
> > license, you don't have any serious restrictions on what you can do with
> > it - you can bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate it, you can choose to
> > distribute your works for free, for money, with or without source code,
> > etc.  The GPL strips some of these freedoms by forcing the distribution of
> > source code.  It does not, however, prevent the code from being sold.
>
> The GPL protects the freedom of the source code and couldn't care less
> about the "freedom" of those who would seek to close the code.

So, in other words, it's all right not to offer freedom to all.

> Code released under the GPL will always be free.  Code released under
> BSD-style licenses can be distributed free or can be distributed as
> part of a proprietary package.  Apple would not have been allowed to
> use the Linux kernel in their closed source OS/X effort, but were able
> to use the BSD kernel without any legal issues at all.  Microsoft also
> make use of BSD code in their offerings.

Correct.

> Basically, if you release code under the GPL then you do so knowing
> that your code will always be freely available and will benefit from
> fixes and new features etc.  

Sort of.  The flip side of this coin is that you will drive certain
classes of people into rewriting the functionality offered by your 
software, and licensing it under nonrestrictive terms - or to opt for 
entirely closed solutions.  Both bad (for you).

Had you not licensed your software under the GPL, you could have 
benefitted from their efforts to extend your BSD-style copyrighted 
software.  This is what has happened with companies like Apple and
BSDi who have used the Berkeley UNIX codebase, as an example.  Neither
of those companies have contributed all of their changes back to the
community, but then again, many of their changes would not be
appropriate for distribution.

> If you release code under a BSD-style
> license then your code has no such protection, and improved versions
> do not have to be released with any freedom at all.

Correct, but it is largely Stallman FUD that has GPL advocates believing
that no one will contribute their changes back to a BSD-licensed work.
Common sense and observed history give a more accurate picture of the
relative lack of danger here.

> People who say "the GPL strips some of these freedoms" really don't
> understand what freedom means.

Yeah.  GPL...  let's slap some restrictions on what people can do.  
Surely encumbering software with restrictions on what you can do with
it is more free than software that lets you do what you want.  Isn't
that an Ashcroft-esque definition of freedom?

The thing most GPL zealots don't get is this:  yeah, it's a great position
to take philosophically, but from a practical point of view, it's silly...

Most people will contribute changes back to a project, regardless of what
license exists, simply because it is easier to do that than it is to
endlessly support a custom local version.  This class of people can safely
be ignored, for the purposes of this discussion, as irrelevant.

In the remaining cases, you basically have people who don't want to 
contribute their changes back, for whatever reason (and there are valid 
reasons for this).

   a) This does not hurt a BSD licensed project, whereas

   b) The GPL'd project loses out if the person becomes motivated to go
      write a BSD licensed version of their product, so that they can 
      then go and make their further undistributed changes in peace.

      This is especially damaging when there would have been a mix of
      noncontributed changes and also contributed changes coming back
      to the project, but instead now you have a competing project.

	-or-

   c) The GPL'd project loses out if the person does something else
      entirely.

In the end, you are merely restricting the scope and potential
contributors to a project by using the GPL.  I consider that both silly
and a mistake.

I've most frequently heard pro-GPL arguments from amateur coders who are
angered by the idea that someone else might make money off of their
codebase, but it is actually these same coders who don't understand that
the license does not prohibit that.

THAT'S misunderstanding freedom.  :-)

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.