Re: licensing

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:33:47PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> 
> > Use GPL. BSD allows other parties to take the software private, and not
> > share their changes. This enables parties like Microsoft to "embrace
> > and extend" existing API's and standards creating a proprietary lock-in
> > where none existed before.
> 
> BSD licenses also encourage reuse of good APIs and standards (many of
> which have guided the direction of Unix and the internet).
As do all open style licenses (GPL included) as well as proprietary
lock-in companies (For their own purposes).

All Good Programming Design (TM) principles encourage reuse of good APIs
and standards.  Its a moot point in this discussion. 

the BSD license ......
> > enables parties like Microsoft to "embrace and extend" existing API's
> > and standards creating a proprietary lock-in where none existed before.
> > GPL prevents that from happening.
> 
> In other words, the GPL is not free.

Wrong,  Its the BSD license that isn't free. The BSD license doesn't
let a software author keep their software safe from being taken over by a
private company.  The GPL insures that they have that freedom.

This is the primary failing of the BSD license.  But its not fatal by
any means.  Some people don't care about that freedom.  Some people
consider it to be a positive attribute.  And under certain circumstances
it is.

This dichotomy clearly illustrates that one person's "freedom" is
another person's "Lack of freedom", or that freedom can be perceived and
exist simultaneously on multiple axes.  

Both the GPL and the BSD license styles give freedoms and restrictions
but they do so in different directions.   For software being used by a
government (The point of the original discussion) I believe the GPL
is a better match.  Its use will prevent any company from using the 
"embrace and extend" seduction on the government creating a vertical
monopoly or single supplier situation which will allow that company to 
write their own ticket when it comes to pricing the, now "locked-in"
software application.

> > Real world experience shows us that GPL style licenses are much more
> > successful than BSD licenses at producing large, successful communities
> > of both developers and end-user's. For a project to succeed, both are
> > needed.
> 
> Do you have any examples/citations that say GPL is more successful?

The Linux Kernel versus the BSD kernel.  Linux is far more widespread,
has been ported to more hardware platforms, is supported by more
independent developers, is supported by many, many times more commercial
companies, and is for more widely and numerously distributed than the
BSD kernel.  Were talking orders of magnitude.

> Even large components of Linux distributions are based on BSD-style
> licenses.

Ahh Yes = Linux "Distributions"  key word that.  Not actually part of
Linux.
> 
> XFree86 and Apache are two examples of very successful products and
> communities that are based on BSD-type licenses. The X11/XFree86
> licensing has encouraged the code to be embraced and extended.

But in both cases, because they are distributed with, and run on
Linux.   Without Linux neither of these packages would have even a tenth
of their current profile.

-- 
Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research,  Hudson, MA.  [email protected]
copyright 2003.  Use is restricted. Any use is an 
acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html.
Don't forget to change your password often.