[Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Steven Critchfield]

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 16:11 +0100, Kevin Walsh wrote:
> Jason T. Nelson [jtn at jtn.cx] wrote:
> > In our last exciting episode, Kevin Walsh (kevin at cursor.biz) said:
> > > If GNU/Linux was licensed under a BSD-style license then Red Hat could
> > > easily close the source - just as Apple did when they stole BSD code
> > > to create "their" OS/X effort.  I don't believe that Red Hat would do
> > > that sort of thing anyway - those tactics are best left to Apple and
> > > Microsoft.
> > >
> > Umm.. subtle but very important point here. Apple did not "steal" BSD
> > code. BSD code cannot be stolen. It is given away as basically a gift.
> > Stealing implies that the person you stole from has now lost something.
> >
> Perhaps "steal" was a bit harsh then.  Maybe I should have said Apple,
> Microsoft and others "close the source with no compensation nor
> recognition given to the original authors, as allowed by the stupid BSD
> license."  It's the authors' fault really.  They live and learn.  Perhaps
> they'll use the GPL next time.

Please do not call the BSD license stupid. It has a reason. While I
don't like the connotation of the statement that the GPL is viral, it is
true. BSD licensing allows you to take portions of code private for
interspersing with proprietary code. Both have their basis in beliefs
about the nature of people. 

Person opinions only here but the GPL seems to be pessimistic about the
nature of people and companies. It forces the software it intermingles
with to also be open source. And that by legally forcing code
distributions to be open sourced, it gives the community a greater
chance of getting the derivative works either directly or via a person
willing to purchase the product and share. 

BSD seems to be very optimistic in that there will be enough people
willing to contribute back to a project that the amount not contributed
back won't matter much. 

In the business I work for, we have to be careful of the licenses we use
like everyone else. We keep our eye towards making a profit off of some
of our code, and we are always looking for ways to make money off of
services. Some of our code is BSD licensed and held privately. Some of
our code is held in proprietary licenses. We use GPL software when it
doesn't cause trouble with our motivations. We tend to contribute to all
we can. If we BSD license our code we wish to share as a company, we
don't ever have to worry about someone elses changes causing us trouble
in our proprietary code. We then get the best of both open source
collaberation and proprietary code.

All that and I contribute to both GPL and BSD licensed projects. Neither
side is stupid, just differently motivated.

-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>