-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kevin Buettner writes:
 > On Jun 15,  1:18pm, Nathan Saper wrote:
 > 
 > > Most programs in the *BSDs are licensed under the BSD license, which
 > > gives even more freedom than the GNU GPL.
 > 
 > Be careful with statements like this.  Which one offers more or less
 > freedom really depends upon your point of view.
 > 
 > When I'm contributing to a project on my own time, I prefer it to be a
 > GPL'd project because I know that the license will ensure that if
 > someone wants to use it commercially, they will have to release
 > their changes and improvements back to the community.
 > 
 > OTOH, I've worked organizations where using a portion of a GPL'd piece
 > of software wasn't an option because it would have to be linked
 > against a proprietary code base.  (And if this is done, the
 > proprietary code base would also have to be GPL'd.)  So, in such
 > settings, I would look for code that was either public domain or had a
 > BSD or BSD-like license.
 > 
 > So one way to look at it is that a BSD style license gives others the
 > freedom to exploit the original developer's work whereas the GPL
 > ensures that the original developer's work plus improvements made by
 > others will continue to be free to all.
 > 
 > These licenses might help explain why Linux has more mindshare than
 > *bsd OSes right now.  The BSD license encourages splintering of the
 > code base.  I.e, when an organization decides to go commercial with a
 > BSD licensed piece of software, they will frequently hire up the
 > principal developers.  That organization will then make proprietary
 > modifications to the code which remain the property of the
 > organization.  Meanwhile the original project will either continue on
 > if there are still interested external developers around or else it
 > will founder, and perhaps eventually die off.
 > 
 > Contrast this to development of (largely GPL'd) software being done by
 > Red Hat, SUSE, VA Linux, and many, many others.  Any new improvements
 > to code developed by these organizations must (if GPL'd) be made
 > available to everyone else.  Thus the GPL has a unifying influence
 > on the software rather than fragmenting as is the case with a BSD
 > style license.
 > 
 > Kevin
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
 > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
 > 

By "freedom," I mean "the freedom to do whatever the hell you want to
do with the software."  No matter how you look at it, the GPL puts
more restrictions on the developer than BSD does.  This isn't to say
that BSD is better.  I happen to prefer the GPL, largely due to the
reasons you stated above.  But I think it would be hard to argue that
the developer has more freedom with GPL than he/she does with BSD.  In 
a way, it's like Marxism vs. capitalism (GPL being Marxism, BSD being
capitalism): BSD allows for more individual freedom in the short term, 
but the GPL allows for collective advancement, in the end making everyone free.

Kinda makes you wonder why we have a capitalistic economy and a
Marxist software development system. . . .

- -- 
Primary Email (PGP): natedog@well.com
Alternate Email (no PGP): nsaper420@yahoo.com
PGP Key: http://www.well.com/user/natedog/key.pgp
http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
ICQ: 64619307
finger natedog@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE5SU+IUv7vZyB+cZkRAuIuAJ9XsVKKj9xDuL5tfu8yPI6CeTlEtQCcC9WU
xP/KYm72RNwfDJWZJC/osg0=
=Pwt/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----