Subject: Re: The BSD license vs the GPL
To: None <timh@tjhawkins.com>
From: Harley Laue <harley-laue@uiowa.edu>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 02/23/2005 17:42:08
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050203070609060000000305
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't see why people even give a valid response to such garbage. They
could go to many web sites and look at advantages and disadvantages. Why
bring it up yet again?
timh@tjhawkins.com wrote:
>I do not see why a flamewar should be started over this topic again. Both
>licenses advantages and disavantages and they have their points and places
>in computing today.
>
>Thanks
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv84@gmail.com>
>To: <netbsd@sopwith.solgatos.com>
>Cc: <netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:19 PM
>Subject: Re: The BSD license vs the GPL
>
>
>
>
>>On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:22 +0000, Dieter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see everyone is missing the point of the GPL.
>>>
>>>Go read up on *why* RMS created the GPL.
>>>
>>>If I as a customer have a choice between a product
>>>that provides documentation and source code vs
>>>a product that does not provide documentation and
>>>source code, guess which product I am going to buy?
>>>
>>>The reason to use NetBSD (or any *BSD) in a product
>>>instead of Linux isn't the BSD license vs the GPL,
>>>it is because *BSD is a better version of Unix
>>>than Linux. The BSD license may allow you to
>>>keep your sources closed, but that is just going
>>>to lose you customers.
>>>
>>>If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of commercial
>>>products out there based on Linux, dispite the alleged
>>>disadvantages of the GPL.
>>>
>>>
>>And that's because Linux is fashionable, and they know that by
>>mentioning Linux, they'll win a lot of customers.
>>
>>
>>
>>> They list the source code
>>>availability as a feature. It is a selling point.
>>>
>>>
>>Nothing stops them from using BSD and later distributing the sources.
>>They can still use that "selling point". Plus they can generally
>>(with few exceptions) license their changes under the GPL (which is
>>impossible the other way around).
>>
>>Sorry, but I don't see how the GPL is better in this sense.
>>
>>--
>>Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
>>http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/
>>The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--------------050203070609060000000305
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I don't see why people even give a valid response to such garbage. They
could go to many web sites and look at advantages and disadvantages.
Why bring it up yet again?<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:timh@tjhawkins.com">timh@tjhawkins.com</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid042401c519e3$b7caa9b0$6601a8c0@yourw92p4bhlzg"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I do not see why a flamewar should be started over this topic again. Both
licenses advantages and disavantages and they have their points and places
in computing today.
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julio M. Merino Vidal" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmmv84@gmail.com"><jmmv84@gmail.com></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:netbsd@sopwith.solgatos.com"><netbsd@sopwith.solgatos.com></a>
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org"><netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org></a>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: The BSD license vs the GPL
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:22 +0000, Dieter wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I see everyone is missing the point of the GPL.
Go read up on *why* RMS created the GPL.
If I as a customer have a choice between a product
that provides documentation and source code vs
a product that does not provide documentation and
source code, guess which product I am going to buy?
The reason to use NetBSD (or any *BSD) in a product
instead of Linux isn't the BSD license vs the GPL,
it is because *BSD is a better version of Unix
than Linux. The BSD license may allow you to
keep your sources closed, but that is just going
to lose you customers.
If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of commercial
products out there based on Linux, dispite the alleged
disadvantages of the GPL.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">And that's because Linux is fashionable, and they know that by
mentioning Linux, they'll win a lot of customers.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> They list the source code
availability as a feature. It is a selling point.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Nothing stops them from using BSD and later distributing the sources.
They can still use that "selling point". Plus they can generally
(with few exceptions) license their changes under the GPL (which is
impossible the other way around).
Sorry, but I don't see how the GPL is better in this sense.
--
Julio M. Merino Vidal <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmmv84@gmail.com"><jmmv84@gmail.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/</a>
The NetBSD Project - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.NetBSD.org/">http://www.NetBSD.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------050203070609060000000305--