Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR GPL is about user's rights; BSD is about hoarding. I would not call it free as speech; it is rather about "Freedom of hoarding" and "freedom to be a parasite:. Apple's OS X is a derivative fo the BSD operating system; and there is a good reason it is not popular (as in widespread). |
Apache which is based on a license similiar to the BSD one hosts every other website on the internet.
Also, if popularity is a measure then there are more closed sourced products than open source - which means closed source better.
Most of the world is selfish. So most of the world does closed source stuff. The next level of semi-selfish folks chose GPL. The next level of almost unselfish chose Apache/BSD. The totally unselfish ones just release into public domain.
Nothing wrong in being in any of these categories. Without closed source stuff, there would be no software industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de_Raadt"]
He is free to have his views; but I rather value my own rights. |
Just like closed source folks value their own rights.
Atleast they aren't hypocritical enough to call their license free or open.
Free means free.
If you are giving away something free, you can't dictate what the other person does with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR There is a good reason Google is posting their own modifications to the kernel in the GIT repositories; |
Google contributes just enough to avoid being labelled a parasite.
Google is a big company. They can look around & find something to contribute which doesn't hamper their competitive advantage.
If google was a believer in open source, they would have open sourced their search algorithms. But they aren't stupid.
Google is as secretive as any company. And they should be - they owe it to their shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR and there is a good reason greedy corporates get away with not doing the same with APache / BSD licences. |
There is a guy distributing free t-shirts on the road. You take one. But don't give anything back to him. Does that make you greedy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR I am afraid you got this wrong.
You can continue to use that program under your own (BSD) license, so long as you do not use MY modifications. |
Exactly. You used my code, but locked me out of your improvements. Which is what Theo DeRaadt is complaining about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR I am able to apply GPL to my modifications to your code, because BSD is a subset of the GPL. |
Just like BSD is a subset of a propreitary license.
Someone can take BSD code, make changes & keep it under a propreitary license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR With BSD, I can very well refuse to give you any code (let alone GPL it) to the modifications I make. |
When I release my code under a BSD/Apache license, I do it only if I believe in a free license. Free meaning really free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR When you give t
And finally, Linux has more hardware manufacturers contributing driver code than any of the *BSD flavors. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_de...river_advocacy Quote:
Originally Posted by BaCkSeAtDrIVeR
But is it any different with any of the Daily news papers or magazines, or any part of the mass media for that matter? |
Atleast the newspaper doesn't get to know which of the articles I did read in the newspaper.
This is how I use Google.
I have 2 browsers installed on my box.
IE8 - which has coookies from all Google & Google related sites blocked.
But because of this I can't use IE8 to check GMail.
Chrome - I use this solely for checking GMail.
I remember the times when doubleclick used to be considered the most evil company in web based stuff. Then they were bought over by Google.
Strangely, I am not so paranoid about Microsoft. Occasionally when I use Bing, I use it from IE8.