[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian/GNU Freebsd


On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, John Goerzen wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 19, 1999 at 02:59:17PM -0500, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> > Same with Caldera. Same with SuSE. That's not the point.
> >  
> > > How is that the same as companies taking it over and then closing the
> > > source?
> > 
> > That's not the point here, John; the point is that companies can make
> I find it interesting that you are trying to tell me what point I'm making.

*applies emergency brakes* Okay, time to stop *this* train of thought
before it gets out of hand. I'm getting the intense feeling of
miscommunication here. *grin* 

I'm not trying to tell you what point YOU are making, I'm trying to
explain the point that *I* am making. With that said, let's continue on.
> > profit off it. As it stands, it would not be in a company's best interests
> So what if companies can make a profit off it?  RMS doesn't care.  If he
> doesn't, why should we?

That's RMS. I'm PRJ. My views differ. 

I blindly follow no one person or movement.

Nor should anyone else. I agree with a lot of what RMS believes. That
doesn't mean I agree with everything. Nor does it mean I share the same
viewpoints. I believe that it is wrong to allow any company to take my
hard work, put it in a pretty box, and make money off of it. Especially
without myself seeing a single cent of that money. 

Put yourself in a different developer's shoes, for a moment. You've spent
over 2 years working on a program, that you licensed under the GPL. Now
it's stable, and everyone loves it. Now a company comes along, picks it
up, puts their name on it, makes some modifications and improvements, and
sells it. You wouldn't be very happy, would you?

Oh, sure, you can get the code with their improvements! When you buy the
product. And not a second sooner.

I very truly hope that I'm not the only one seeing something wrong with
that picture. 

> The point is that with a BSD license, people can take the code and run with
> it, without any obligation to give the source back.  This is not so with
> GPL, and this is an extremely important difference.

*nods* I see that as a serious problem with the BSD license myself.
However, I don't believe that should stop us. The kernel is BSD. What we
will be contributing will be GPL, primarily, I believe. We aren't the
people behind the kernel. So the license is not something we should worry
about, as we cannot change it.

My point (not yours;), is that the GPL only forces the companies to
include the source code. It does nothing to stop them from charging any
ungodly amount they choose for it. And it does not make them give back to
the community without making profit. They are under no obligation to
simply give away their source or modifications. And they won't. They'll
charge you for it. And they're within the licensing. And to me, that's
just *wrong*. There's no other way to put it, the way I see it. We work
hard, we spend hours and hours working on code, and they can pick it up,
put it in a box, and sell it, without us seeing a single cent.

| Phillip R. Jaenke       | "Not all wisdom comes from without;  |
| prj@nls.net   -and-     |  much wisdom can only come from      |
| rs6000@linuxguru.net    |  within. Only you can teach yourself |
| Professional Unix Guru  |  some of the most important lessons  | 
+-------------------------+  of life." --Takes-Many-Roads,       |
Project Head              |              Silent Strider Theurge  |
the Linux-RS/6000 Project +--------------------------------------+
- - http://www.nls.net/mp/prj/linux/ -- http://www.nls.net/mp/prj/ -

Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv


Reply to: