[Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Kevin Walsh]

Joe Greco [jgreco at ns.sol.net] wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
>
No, in other words freedom must be protected against those who would
seek to deny it.

> 
> 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.
>
That's not up to them to decide.  Under the GPL, if you distribute
modified code then you must publish your enhancements for the benefit
of all.  The team responsible for the core code can decide whether the
contributed code is "appropriate for distribution."

The GPL basically says that "if you don't want to distribute your changes,
and want to use GPLed software, then start from scratch and write it
all yourself."  The BSD says "I've spent a lot of time on this, but
I'm happy for you to lock it up, make modifications and pretend that
you wrote it all."

> >
> > 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 whole point of the GPL is to protect the freedom of the code, for
the benefit of all.  If you consider the fact that you can't lock up
the code and release it as a proprietary binary to be a restriction then
I have no sympathy.  Release your changes freely as open source and
stop whining.

> 
> 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.
>
That's all a nonsense.  You started talking about "people who don't
want to contribute their changes back" and then qualified it in (b)
by saying that the project would have lost out.  In this case, the
project was in a no-win situation from the moment that person found
it.

With the GPL, if a person doesn't want to distribute the source and
all changes then they can either (a) not distribute anything at all
(b) create their own competing product.

I welcome competition.  You obviously have a proprietary outlook.

> 
>    c) The GPL'd project loses out if the person does something else      
> entirely. 
>
If that person wasn't going to contribute then the project would have
lost out regardless of its license.  At least the GPL would have
protected the project from an even worse situation - wholesale code
theft and lock-up.

-- 
   _/   _/  _/_/_/_/  _/    _/  _/_/_/  _/    _/
  _/_/_/   _/_/      _/    _/    _/    _/_/  _/   K e v i n   W a l s h
 _/ _/    _/          _/ _/     _/    _/  _/_/    kevin at cursor.biz
_/   _/  _/_/_/_/      _/    _/_/_/  _/    _/