Re: Linus about GPL x BSD(long)

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:

> Take a read:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=9gpio5%24a8%241%25cesium.transmeta.com%40ifi.uio.no&rnum=3

Just a couple short excerpts from Linus' post:

> I happen to believe that for stuff that I've done for my own enjoyment
> and made available to others because I like to, I want to always have
> the ability to decide to follow somebody elses fork of my work instead.
> The GPL gives me that. I have the right to say "I don't _have_ to be the
> driver - I can decide to be a follower too".

[...]

> So _one_ part of freedom is your freedom to choose your own license. But
> you have to realize that if you want that freedom, then you should also
> allow OTHER PEOPLE the same freedom, instead of thinking that you are
> the grand poo-bah of licenses and know what "the light" is.

I think this is exactly what rubs people the wrong way about the "viral" 
nature of the GPL.  Because the FSF thinks that the GPL is "the grand 
poo-bah of licenses", the GPL demands that OTHER code must be licensed 
under the GPL, and even a "kindred spirit" license like the MPL just isn't 
good enough, because it's not THE one license that's good enough, the GPL.

Now, Linus has every right to use the GPL on his own code, but a non-viral 
copyleft license like the MPL would still allow him to follow any fork of 
his code without asking others to give up their freedom to choose their own 
preferred license for their code.

As Linus says at the end:

> The ONE rule about freedom is: everybody wants it for themselves, yet
> wants to take it away from others.

This is why a non-viral copyleft license may be preferable to the GPL; the 
GPL wants others to give up their freedom to choose a license even on other 
code, NOT just modifications made to GPL code.

Many people feel that the GPL throws out the baby with the bathwater, in 
trying to protect freedom by denying this basic freedom to choose your own 
license for your own code.  Is asking people to surrender their freedom 
really the right way to ensure their freedom?

The FSF calls the viral nature a "strong copyleft" and uses "not a strong 
copyleft" in a derogatory way when describing other licenses that copyleft 
the code without asking other programmers to sacrifice their freedom to 
choose their preferred license, as if there's something wrong with allowing 
another programmer the freedom to choose for himself...

It might be more descriptive to call the GPL a "strongarm copyleft"!

Deven