OSNews

There is no holy war. There is just one party who refers to a mockery of freedom and there is another party who refers to real freedom. Ask some prisoner about *real* freedom or some people in the VR of China about it.

>They are both wrong - it's that simple.

It's that simple? Yes indeed if you don't know anything about these terms.

What does "VR" stand for?
I am curious because you seem to compare some of us to prisoners, in the context of freedom, the lack of.

>BSD is the freedom to enslave other people.

How so? How does BSD enslave anyone? If anything it gives me code to learn from and use in ,almost, every way I see fit. How does that equate slavery?

The BSD gives the first person right to do everything except removing the copyright notice and the list of conditions. It does allow the person to sublicensing it so those who acquire the product cannot modify it.

That's what the Vice President states as one of the advantages of the BSD license. The freedom for one person to take freedom away from other persons.

I quote him here:

[if they choose the GPL v3.]

The BSD license allows for reducing the rights for other persons and that equals enslavement. The BSD grants all kinds of freedom including the freedom to restrict other people. The GPL allows most kind of freedoms but not the freedom to restrict other people. The BSD-fans complain about this, calling it lack of freedom (because it forces code-sharing), and the GPL-fans complain about the lack of protection of _everybodys_ right, and call it lack of freedom.

Personally I prefer a modified 3-clause BSD license where the third clause says that the terms cannot be changed. No obligation to share source code - and no right to restrict other people.

I really, truly wish there were a enforceable moratorium on the use of the word "Freedom" when discussing software licensing. If nothing else, it's a misuse of the word - the definition that's relevant is "power to determine action without restraint." In literal terms, that doesn't apply to any license I can think of - commercial, GPL, BSD, MIT, etc (with the exception of public domain, which isn't really a license per se). Really, what is a software license if not a list/set of restrictions on use & distribution? Once something is restricted in any way, then it is - by definition - not free.

Certainly the relative degree to which different licenses are restricted is a valid topic - and as with anyone else who finds the subject interesting, I find specific sets of restrictions (licenses) more palatable than others. But that doesn't mean that it's valid for me try to equate my preferred set of restrictions with "freedom" - and equate all other sets of restrictions with "enslavement."

You are using the narrow understanding of the word "freedom". There is also a broad understanding.

Freedom is narrowly defined as the ability to act without restraint from the government, or any other entity. Since all are equal this automatically means your freedom ends the moment you try to limit the freedom of other persons. That's the GPL.

Freedom as a concept has negative freedoms (freedom from) and positive freedoms (freedom to).

GPL has both kinds (freedom to and freedom from). BSD has only one kind (freedom to).

BSD has not freedom from oppression. GPL has. In that narrow sense of understanding the GPL is freer than BSD. Only if you deny the existence or right to negative freedoms can the BSD be considered to be the freer license.

EDIT: Enslavement is defined as any kind of restriction that is not created to protect the positive freedoms. The restrictions (negative freedoms) in GPL are there to protect the positive freedoms and therefore are not enslavement. The BSD has no such restrictions (but does have restrictions) and as such allows for enslavement (e.g. Microsoft EULA).

Edited 2007-09-01 01:58 UTC

The restraint in this context is Copyright law (restricting the use of the copyrighted work), and the licence grants additional use of the work. I would call that granting additional freedoms to users/propagators.

Edited 2007-09-02 05:06

"Between the weak and the strong, it is freedom that oppresses and the law that liberates." J.J.R.

Edited 2007-09-01 09:07

I was in total agreement with you right up until the "figuratively" part.

Huh? I would like to ask for clarification, but I won't since it might put you in a difficult position. Sure does sound to me like you'd like to do it as in _really_ do it. O_o

His other claim, the one about FCC approval, was also misleading. As if a vendor would be held responsible for something a user did with a modified product.

The vendor would not be held responsible. However, the fact that the end user even COULD modify the product for unregulated spectrum use can hinder it's FCC approval. Use of the radio spectrum is a touchy situation since it's not just an unlimited resource. Most current devices are not only designed to only operate within their designated spectrum but also to be difficult to modify otherwise.

What he's referring to here is software defined radio. Now while modifying the software for unauthorized spectrum use is a legitimate concern, changing the software license so it's "not allowed" is hardly much of a protection against that.

> His other claim, the one about FCC approval, was also misleading. As if
> a vendor would be held responsible for something a user did with a
> modified product.

FCC approval would probably be a lot harder if you pass along with the device a license that explicitly allows to modify the software to send on other frequencies. Which the GPL in effect is (it even says that the four freedom it grants may not be limited by other means, while in fact "other means" such as frequency regulation *does* limit the freedoms for a good reason).

EDIT: This may not be legally bulletproof - in fact I guess it is very well possible to get such a device approved (and after all, IANAL). However, how many companies are going through the necessary mess? Time-to-market is critical in that business.

Edited 2007-09-01 20:06

That belief is what he meant by "evangelization."

For the love of God, enough with the "GPL/FSF is a religion" crap!

Well, it stands to reason that if redistributors must show the code if asked to, then the end-user has the opportunity to see the code. Meanwhile, if all you're doing is showing them a copyright statement and the BSD licence, there's not much software freedom to be had for the end-user.

Hardly evangelism - more like common sense, in fact.

I agree on the general assessment of FUD.

As you alluded, Tivoization is part of a larger issue concerning the vendor's responsibility to ensure that their users obey TOS and legal requirements. For example, it speaks to the issue of whether P2P software distributors are responsible for their users' deference to copyright law.

IMHO, it falls on the user to follow the rules set forth by the vendor and the laws in their jurisdiction. The vendor should not be liable for servicing users that violate their TOS, nor should they be liable under civil or criminal code for the activities of their users.

Furthermore, this is just the beginning of a new era of locked software products. Intel's TXT allows any software vendor to easily make their software tamper-proof on commodity hardware. Most commercial software will soon be digitally signed by the vendor, including many commercial open-source products. We'll be allowed to look but not touch.

BSD is trying to position themselves as "free as in free market". The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?

Real freedom (to borrow our own Oliver's language) is a paradox. Real freedom requires real choice. However, real freedom allows distributors to eliminate real choice. Therefore, the closest we can get to real freedom is to impose just enough restrictions to protect real choice.

It's not Tivo's hardware, as Linus often suggests. It is, however, Tivo's service. If Tivo says I lose my service if I change the software, that's their right. I could start my own company to service Tivos running modified software. That's real choice, and that's my idea of freedom. Is it "real freedom"? No, and that's a good thing.

> It's not Tivo's hardware

It is Tivo's hardware before they sell it to you.

Everyone agrees that modifying hardware you own is fine. Even the evil telecom industry has a hard time defending not allowing private SIM unlocking.

But the GPLv3 goes way beyond that, and would dictate how Tivo designed their hardware before they ever sell it. That is the big problem for some people. The GPLv3 dictates the hardware design of devices that use GPLv3 software. They took a pure software development license and added tendrils that snake into hardware development.

It is Tivo's hardware before they sell it to you.

Yes, and I didn't exist before I was born. What's your point?

would dictate how Tivo designed their hardware

The GPLv3 only says that derived works must not be prevented from running. Tivo may implement whatever anti-tampering hardware they wish, but it may not be used to restrict derived works of GPLv3 software. In other words, they can implement technology such as TXT, and they can use it to lock-down non-GPLv3 software, including their proprietary software.

As I said in the thread about vPro/TXT, these technologies can be used as an effective security feature so long as users sign their trusted binaries instead of vendors signing them. GPLv3 doesn't prohibit this potentially useful technology. It simply prevents it from being used against GPLv3 software in evil ways.

I was getting at the freedom thing. Explaining it would be like explaining a joke. Too late now!

It all comes down to this: the GPLv3 is a software license that dictates hardware design. Software license. Dictating hardware design. That is very strange to a lot of people.

Edited 2007-09-01 05:30 UTC

The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?

*raises hand*

The more free market, the more freedom. All the efforts to "protect" here and there, to "restrict" here and there, are just making things worse.
Efforts that are actually productive are the ones made in a radically different direction, that is, ensuring the market is really free - it's not me saying this, and not even Adam Smith and Milton Friedman: it's history.

Real freedom (to borrow our own Oliver's language) is a paradox. Real freedom requires real choice. However, real freedom allows distributors to eliminate real choice. Therefore, the closest we can get to real freedom is to impose just enough restrictions to protect real choice.

Strongly disagree. The closest we can get to real freedom is to *avoid imposing further restrictions*.
I can understand when a vendor imposes restrictions - WTH, it's *their* stuff, let them do whatever they want; if I don't have a use for it, I don't buy it. If they piss off their users, let them hammer their own testicles.
OTOH, I can't understand when open source software comes with restrictions.

Suppose a professional developer sees a GPL software and has a great idea about making a significant improvement, that would cost him a lot of time but that some users would be ready to pay big bucks for.
Since the software base is GPL, the developer couldn't do it without giving away the code for free - and this means that in most cases it wouldn't do it.

I see no winners here, and two losers: the developer, and the users.

And I can't see *why* they should be losers when they could be winners, if only the software base would have published with a BSD license instead of a GPL.

>>The invisible hand of the market will protect user freedom. Does anyone still believe this?
>*raises hand*

And how far did you have to dig to bury your head in the sand to ignore the Microsoft's monopoly?

Somehow apparently the market didn't prevent Microsoft from gaining a monopoly, that's not a first, that's why they are anti-trust law (which failed in Microsoft's case)..

And how far did you have to dig to bury your head in the sand to ignore the Microsoft's monopoly?

Microsoft monopoly is one reason why one would expect people to try to make the market *more* free.

Instead, I see just the opposite: people bitching against free market, calling voluntary trade "enslavement", and calling the removal of choice "freedom".

While we're getting rid of silly terms, let's ban this one, at least in this context: monopoly.

A monopoly is defined as one company so controlling the market that:

1) nobody else can start a business;

2) nobody else can profit.

Since Microsoft has come into play, dozens of companies have entered the field -- even if you take out all the Linux repackagers.

As to profit -- it's very easy to overlook that Microsoft is the second richest OS company on the planet. IBM, a Linux repackager, is 15th in the Fortune 500, with $91 billion in revenues each year. Microsoft is 49th, with $44 billion. And that's not counting the various companies who have stakes in OSS and free software, such as Dell and Hewett-Packard. (And the GPL isn't the only way to get quick wealth -- BSD-based corporation Google is #293 and rising meteorically.)

Even 'struggling' OS companies such as Red Hat, Canonical, and Linspire are pocketing between $10 million and $1 billion each year. I don't know about you, but if I can go from nothing to making over $10 million a quarter in just a few years, then I would consider my business a success. If I was ethically unburdened and started packaging GPL and BSD software in the same way they have, I too could be a millionaire by the end of the year.

Microsoft has a majority, definately. But not a monopoly. They do not control the market, and they do not prevent other companies from becoming almost overnight millionaires. If they were a monopoly, we would not be talking about alternate operating systems. On the contrary -- the time has never been better to get into the operating system business.

By that logic, let's abolish all laws. Let's see how free you're going to feel without police to guarantee you can walk around safely, government protecting you from bad business practices and so on.

Police doesn't help. Police is basically a mistake. They tend to do nothing and care more about speed tickets (they give nice profit) than actual crimes.

If you want to live safely - defend yourself. You have that right.

Bzzt! Read the GPL FAQ: the developer only has to offer the code to people receiving the binaries. They can charge as much money as they want for the binaries, but must then offer the source code.

Of course, charge $50 for some "neat" software and then some user might ask for the sources, then upload them to the Internet. But really, the developer should be looking at ways to entice people to pay them for the binaries, either because it's more convenient for most users, or perhaps because as the originator or reputable developer of the software, they're seen as the more reliable source of enhancements.

On that latter aspect of competing suppliers of mostly the same code, compare and contrast the fortunes of Red Hat against Oracle, who were supposedly going to muscle in on Red Hat's enterprise customers. Have they all defected to Oracle? Sometimes it's the service that matters most.

What GNU people don't get is that their unfriendliness to proprietary and copyrighted software and patents hurts them in the first place, and no proprietary vendors. The world we live in is dominated by proprietary and copyrighted software and patents. They are in huge majority, especially in consumers market. Choosing not to be interoperable with them leads only to isolation.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am surely not going to be Don Quijote for the cause.

Tell that to SCO!



Please learn to distinguish between these terms before lecturing us. You might think that patents on software are OK, but they are nasty instrument which lets people tell other people not to develop software of a particular nature, even if those in the threatened parties have never seen a single patent document in their lives. Where is the freedom in that situation when people are threatened to stay out of a line of endeavour because someone claims to "own" it already?

I suppose your solution is to suck up to the corporate patent holders and hope you don't rub them up the wrong way - a fine notion of "freedom", I'm sure.

> whilst the GPLv3 requires that users can actually run the covered
> software on the hardware for which it was supplied (thus defeating so-
> called "tivoization"), there's nothing to stop vendors from refusing to
> support modified software if the user's appliance stops working
> properly.

Actually there is: The fact that denying promised support to your customers is one great way to screw your business up. Even if *that* kind of support is actually not what you promised and offered in a contract, it will *look* as if your company is nitpicking about contract details to cheat on its customers.

I guess that's what he is concerned about. At least I would be.

So when the manufacturer of your television, refridgerator, oven, washing machine, etc. tells you that tinkering with the innards voids the warranty, did that spell the end of their business model? Didn't think so.



No, what he's concerned about is making device manufacturers overly wary of GPLv3-licensed projects. Never mind the fact that vendors who get themselves into licence violation proceedings tend to exhibit a less than acceptable awareness of any software licensing basics, GPL-related or otherwise.

It would so rock if they did.

It would be quite interesting to see that come true. Considering the occasional difference in design ideals I'd like to see a BSD Userland.

Excuse me, what do you think is BSD? Just a kernel with GNU userland? There is a userland of BSD, there are just some parts of the toolchain borrowed from GNU.

All this talk about chains always brings to my mind that old saying "A chain is as strong as it's weakest link"...

I know *BSD is a lot more. Remember... I also use DesktopBSD. I'm not just another (GNU/)Linux-user.

Many important parts of the userland is GPL'ed - even the main compiler (GCC). Pull out the GPL'ed part and you have no system.

Personally I'd like to see what the BSD-devs could do. They often have some nice simple solutions, which really makes FSF-code look secondary.

> It would so rock if they did.

Hell yeah, I can't wait porting my scripts because suddenly, everyone decides to change a couple of switches, kill a few options, introduce a few new ones and modify some behavior, maybe invoking some licensing issues.

I don't mean to be a hypocrite, but the GPL userland works quite well, as much as I dislike GPL myself. Is there any reason to do such a thing *besides* trying to get a non-GPL userland?

>Is FreeBSD preparing to develop an alternative to the GNU userland? What?

There is already an alternative, there is just no real alternative to the toolchain. And it's just about real freedom.

what the hell is that? Is FreeBSD preparing to develop an alternative to the GNU userland? What?

no,I think FreeBSD is preparing to unload a massive rapid dominance anti-GPLv3 propaganda to vendors,etc.

Edited 2007-09-01 09:47

Arguing which of GPL or BSD is more "free" is one thing. Make the argument and let the people and vendors decide for themselves.

However, engaging in actual badmouthing the other in front of vendors is something dirty, best left to the likes of Microsoft.

That would be crazy and terribly unsporting, so I seriously doubt the FreeBSD Foundation would stoop to that.

Bullshit, the FSF works like Microsoft. You have "to sign" their license, to get their mockery of freedom. They are "stealing" BSD software and they are giving nothing back to BSD developers. This is exactly the behaviour of most of the companies out there.

The GPL is a plaque for open source.

"Vendors that rely on GPL'ed software are putting the fate of their business at the whim of RMS. Any time that RMS sees someone using GPL software in a way not in accordance with his doctrine, he will alter the license."

False. If something has been released under GPL2, it can safely remain under GPL2, regardless of what RMS says. Unless the copyright holder keeps re-licensing their code under newer versions of GPL, RMS's changes to the license won't matter to the code in question.

"Tivo, et al, should dump GPL software and instead use software whose license is not based on religion."

Both camps (BSD and GPL) have their own sets of fundamental agreed-upon beliefs regarding the source code which they devotedly follow . I just don't see why one of them is more "religious" than the other.

"False. If something has been released under GPL2, it can safely remain under GPL2, regardless of what RMS says. Unless the copyright holder keeps re-licensing their code under newer versions of GPL, RMS's changes to the license won't matter to the code in question. "

What about software licensed under "GPL version 2 and later"? I keep seeing people giving differing interpretations as to what that means, even among GPL proponents.

For example, a few days ago there was an article on slashdot, where supposedly FSF is "positioning itself to sue Microsoft" to make their Novell/Suse vouchers bound under GPL3, and thus open up Microsoft patents to everyone for free. First, one would have to prove that issuing vouchers equates to software distribution, but let's grant that for the sake of argument.

Now, in the comments thread, some said that the vouchers don't fall under GPL3 because the software contained in a Suse distro is not GPL3. But if Suse began to include GPL3 software, then Microsoft would either have to cancel the voucher program, or keep issuing them as GPL3 vouchers.

Others said that since much of the software in Suse is licensed under "GPL2 and later" then that software already falls under GPL3, therefore the vouchers already fall under GPL3. Bruce Perens himself was arguing such in the slashdot comments. That essentially, "GPL2 and later" means that the software falls under GPL2 and all later versions combined (even if those versions have conflicts with each other), and a distributer must abide by all of the GPL versions >= 2.

But to the contrary, others argued that "GPL2 and later" means that the distributor can abide by any one of the versions >= 2 of GPL he chooses to, and disregard the others. That "GPL2 and later" means, "pick whichever version of GPL >= 2 that you want to abide by", so MS could simply say that their vouchers are GPL2 vouchers even for the software in Suse that's "GPL2 and later". Those arguing this interpretation said that the first interpretation is unworkable for a license, since it would allow FSF to alter the license of code that is already in the field.

What's your take on the meaning of "GPL2 and later"?

It doesn't say GPL 2 and later. It says "GPL 2 or later".

The fact you deliberately misquote the license proves you are either uninformed, ill informed, or simply a pain microserf. Considering your past I'm said to say everything indicated the third option.

"GPL 2 or later" means we can choose to use it under the GPL2 or - at our own whim - under a later version than version 2. But it is optional. The code can be used in GPL2-projects, GPL3-projects and GPL1537298243769-projects.

It doesn't say GPL 2 and later. It says "GPL 2 or later".

The fact you deliberately misquote the license proves you are either uninformed, ill informed, or simply a pain microserf. Considering your past I'm said to say everything indicated the third option.



You know, you could've answered the question without the insults. I don't claim to be an expert on GPL. But OSS-guru Bruce Perens does, and here is just one of his comments from the slashdot discussion I referred to, were he uses the phrase "GPL2/GPL3 and later" multiple times:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=281957&cid=20388665
"All of the software that gives "GPL 2 and any later version" as its license is now optionally under GPL3, and new versions of Samba, LIBC, etc., will be "GPL 3 and any later version" and will be included in SuSE. So, Microsoft is obligated under GPL3 if SuSE accepts one coupon for a distribution that contains "GPL3 and later" software. Possibly MS is obligated for "GPL2 and later" software, although that is less clear."

Here's another of his comments:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=281957&cid=20391721
"But they are not legally able to strip off that "and any later version" language."


Others in the same thread used the same "and later" language.

Now, you were real cute at putting forth personal insults against me, saying that it was a "fact that I deliberately misquoted the license" (in effect, calling me a liar/deceiver), and went on to personally attack me on the basis of that "fact", when all I was doing was quoting what GPL-proponents were saying in slashdot. It's very sad that your cohorts modded up you personal attack against me to a 5, which reflects as badly on them as it does on you. Now that I've demonstrated that my question was in earnest, and I was not "deliberately misquoting" a license, do you have the guts to retract your personal attack? Do you have the guts to make a public apology for your misguided public attack? Let's see if you do.

Sorry, but your personal attack was extremely uncalled for. And those that modded your attack up should feel ashamed as well.

Edited 2007-09-01 20:52

"What's your take on the meaning of "GPL2 and later"?"

No, how about you respond to the main point of my comment -- you know, the one you oh, so conveniently forgot to notice? Want me to refresh your all of sudden decrepit memory? Here we go:

Both camps (BSD and GPL) have their own sets of fundamental agreed-upon beliefs regarding the source code which they devotedly follow. I just don't see why one of them is more "religious" than the other.

Perhaps you could provide us with a set of criteria you used to establish that GPL is more "religious" than BSD? I don't know about the rest, but I sure would like to examine them. See if they smell of BS, for example.

""What's your take on the meaning of "GPL2 and later"?"

No, how about you respond to the main point of my comment -- you know, the one you oh, so conveniently forgot to notice? Want me to refresh your all of sudden decrepit memory? Here we go:"

My "decrepit" memory? Is it simply impossible for an OSS advocate to make a point without personal insults?

Regarding your quibble over the use of the word "religion", I already dealt with that in a response to butters. Go read that if you want to.
But let's do a simple comparison.
Most religions have their "Satan". GPL's has its "Satan" (Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc). Most religions have a messianic-like figure. GPL has RMS. Most religions set forth the ideals of what constitutes morality. RMS says software must meet his definition of "free" in order to be "ethical", and that closed-source software itself is "unethical" and that those that produce such software are "unethical".

BDS has NONE of the characteristics that I mention above. Therefore, I regard GPL as being more "religious" than BDS.

Now, I noticed that YOU deliberately missed my point. I said that Tivo could use BSD and avoid GPL's religious baggage. You don't like the use of the word "religious"? Fine. I'll rephrase: Tivo, et al, can use BSD and avoid the FSF/RMS baggage that accompanies GPL.

Now that that's settled (good grief), why don't you answer the question I directed to you? What is your take on the meaning "GPL2 and later"?

Edited 2007-09-01 21:08

A religion is based on sacred texts that remain constant while their interpretations evolve over time. A political party is based on a fundamental worldview reflected in policies that evolve over time.

Which of these animals most closely resembles the FSF?

The FSF has laid out a consistent theory on software freedom based on four requirements. They are really easy to understand and follow, but much tougher to codify within the framework of copyright law. The GPLv3 is an attempt to bring the policy closer to the theory in light of changes in reality. Yes, reality sometimes matters in politics and religion.

Frankly, your attack on religion is as troubling as those that use similar tactics to attack science. Just keep calling it mumbo-jumbo and hope people stop believing things that you find uncomfortable.

Here in the reality-based free software community, we don't conflate principles with policies. When our policies aren't protecting and reflecting our principles, we don't weave an elaborate series of rationalizations about sticking to our guns. We launch a collaborative effort of unprecedented size and transparency to draft a better policy.

Perhaps you'll be disappointed to recall that the GPLv3 was not handed down by God to the prophet RMS. It was created through an intensive process of public review and feedback over the course of about two years. Does that sound more like religion or politics?