[gnu.misc.discuss] Re: BSD & GPL comparaison
Linus Torvalds
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
>True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
>do not harm them. This is the freedom that the GPV steals, this is the
>freedom that the BSD license does not infringe, and this is the reason that
>the GPV harms the cause of freedom instead of helping it.
Well, you and John have long shown that you don't understand the
difference between "freedom" and "anarchy".
The BSD license is anarchy - anybody gets to do anything. And yes,
anarchy is obviously the "most free" state. That doesn't mean that
other forms of freedom aren't "free".
The GPL is not anarchy - but that dpesn't mean that it's not "free".
It's a different kind of freedom. The word "freedom" is not well-defined
in that sense. But clearly _your_ definition (and that of John Dyson) is
complete and utter crap.
According to you, no democracy in the world would ever attain the status
of being "free". The US is obviously not free, as you have to use
seatbelts, you must not walk against red lights, and you cannot run for
president unless you were born here. None of which "harm others".
Face it. You may not like the GPL, but your arguments against it are
full of sh*t and have no basis in reality.
Linus
Linus Torvalds
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
>>The BSD license is anarchy - anybody gets to do anything. And yes,
>>anarchy is obviously the "most free" state. That doesn't mean that
>>other forms of freedom aren't "free".
>
>under that license cannot ever be made proprietary.
You're being silly.
ANY file released under ANY license basically has that property.
You might as well put the file in the public domain - that too will
"never be made proprietary".
The fact is that if you think a software project is just a collection of
files, you're looking at a very limited definition of software project.
To me, and to a lot of people, a software project is not just the status
quo, but how you got there, and how it evolves in the future. It's a
timeline.
And that's where the GPL ensures that the _timeline_ continues to be
available to people. Not just today, but the stuff based on it in
perpetuity. And that's _my_ (and the other GPL users) choice, and not
something you have anything to do with.
The thing really boils down to the fact that you don't like the GPL.
Fine. Don't use it. Stop complaining about it. You don't have any
real grounds to complain about what other people use their time and
effort on.
And turning your personal complaints about the GPL into some semantic
war against the word "free" is just stupid.
Do you accept the GPL when I call it "Open Source"? A lot of people,
including me, don't agree with the political side of FSF. That, along
with the stupid emotional reaction some people (not just you) have about
the word "free", is why most people talk about "Open Source" these days.
But if it is the FSF you're complaining about, then stop blathering
about the GPL, and be _honest_ about your complaints. Don't bitch about
other peoples choice of license. Don't make pointless semantic
arguments that have nothing to do with the English language as most
people would define it.
Linus
Linus Torvalds
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
> Even so, the GPV doesn't provide you with the assurance that
>someone won't fork it and take it in a direction you don't agree with - with
>the sole exception of "direction you don't agree with" == "available with
>distribution restrictions only". This seems like an incomplete form of
>protection, at best.
That IS the "freedom" that you decry as missing in the GPL.
The freedom is there for everybody to make their own decisions - and
take the project in any direction they feel like. Wasn't it you who
claimed that the definition of freedom is "the right to piss people
off"?
If by "pissing people off" you mean the right to take a project into a
direction that the original developer didn't want, then that freedom
definitely exists in the GPL. And that is very much on purpose.
The GPL allows anybody to fork at any time. It would be a bad license
if it didn't allow that - and the definition of "Open Source" licenses
really all have that in common.
The fact that so many people dislike about the GPL is that it requires
that _if_ you fork, you have allow other people to follow your fork.
And that's a powerful thing. Somebody can go off and do their own thing
with the GPL - and if it turns out that they were right and did
something really good, everybody else can decide to join. You can fork
all you want, the same way you can with the BSD license, but YOU CANNOT
KEEP ANYBODY OUT!
So you don't get "private forks" (yeah, that's not strictly true: you
can have private forks on a microscopic level within a company or a
group, but you cannot make those forks available to others without
allowing those others to get into your fork).
Now, I'm not saying that this is "superior" to the BSD license. It's
not. It's _different_. Neither better nor worse. Some people like it a
lot, some people absolutely hate it. That's fine.
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".
And that's my choice.
I see why people like the BSD license too. If you don't really care
what people do with it, the BSD license is more of a "do what you will"
kind of thing. You obviously retain the right to do whatever you want
to your original code - and you don't even _care_ about the right to
follow other peoples forks.
And that's a lot of other peoples choice.
Other people decide that they'd be crazy to use _any_ open source
license, and have a strictly commercial "you get to use it if you pay
for it". That's _their_ choice.
And you shouldn't argue against _any_ of them. You should be out doing
your OWN choices.
>I don't use it. I argue against it in the hope that others will see the
>light and make another choice when choosing a license for their projects.
Why? What "light"? Who made you the arbiter of good taste and "the one
true way"?
The GPL is a valid license. If you are about your project, and you want
to see where it can take you, the GPL gives you (and other people)
rights that you wouldn't have if you chose the BSD license.
And as with _anything_ in life, you don't get something for free. The
GPL gives you rights you don't have with the BSD license, but it does so
by limiting other rights. That's how it always is - in licenses or in
anything else.
You have the right to your life - but that also implies that you don't
have the right to kill others. It's a give-and-take situation. There
are no "intrisic" rights that you or anybody else has. You always have
to pay for a right by giving up another right - that's what _any_
license is (that is, fundamentally, the whole definition of any
"agreement", whether in copyrights or anywhere else).
And everybody has to choose for themselves what is the right license for
them. You arguing against the GPL, calling it names, makes you nothing
but a bigot. You think you have the right to say what other people
should and should not use. You think you have the right to call the
choice of other people names ("GPV" - yeah, very witty).
Do you perhaps also condemn people for their choice of religion? Do you
try to push the "light" to them too? The one true religion? Do you think
you have the moral right (nay, _imperative_!) to try to show people the
error of their ways, and take them all to Jesus/Allah/Buddha/that-great-
big-fluffy-kitty-in-the-sky?
>I consider freedom to be too valuable a concept, and too easily lost, to sit
>idly by while others give it away voluntarily in the name of preserving it.
Classical blathering.
Face it, "freedom" as a pure concept does not exist. You seem to think
that "freedom" means "not bound by any rules", and you didn't understand
my reference to anarchy. Not having rules is _not_ freedom, even though
you (and others) make that mistake over and over again.
Repeat after me: freedom is NOT about the lack of rules.
A lack of rules is called anarchy, not freedom, and the two aren't
really opposites - it's just that they aren't even in the same frame of
reference. They are about two completely different things. Independent.
So what is "freedom"? In the end, it's about having choice. You have to
realize that you cannot live without rules, but at least within a set of
rules YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT TO DO!
Does that give a good definition of "freedom"? Of course not. If there
_was_ a good definition of freedom, people wouldn't get so damn worked
up about the notion.
But the closest approximation of having freedom is to have the right to
do as you please. Without never losing sight of the fact that there ARE
rules.
And part of it is the right to choose your own license for things you
write.
But you have to realize that by your choices, you also limit yourself.
You can choose to work together with other people, and accept some of
their rules - you might choose the GPL. By accepting those rules, you
buy into _their_ choices, and that gives you leverage, in the form of
getting the right to use their code. You win something, but you also
limit yourself by your choice.
But this ALWAYS happens. That's pretty much again a definition: a
choice is not just an action, it also limits your future choices. Your
sequence of choices define who you are as a person, and what you get
done.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too: the choice if eating it
limits your ability to "have" it.
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.
So please give other people the same respect that you seem to require
yourself. Which implies that you should NOT try to show them "the
light".
And there's another part of freedom: the freedom to socialize, and
partake in other peoples activities. Do you get to "join the club" or
not. Do other people have the right to have a "whites only" club? Or a
"straight people only" club? Or a "you can't be part of our development
team" kind of club?
And THAT's the freedom that rms so dearly loves. The freedom to fix
other peoples bugs. The freedom that the GPL tries so hard to protect.
Do you lose something? Yes. You make the choice of living with a set of
ideals. As with any community, you buy into their rules. Because it's a
free world, you don't _have_ to buy into them, but the same way that
if you join a country club you have to follow the dress code, if you buy
into the GPL rules you have to follow the virtual dress code.
Does it give you something in return? Yes.
Are YOU the person to decide whether people should have the right to
join? Nope.
>I do have problems with the FSF's politics. I also have problems with the
>GPV itself. I also refuse to consider freedom merely a matter of semantics.
Freedom as a concept is _not_ a "matter of semantics".
However, your personal definition of "freedom" is not something that
most people would buy into. And when you start to argue about other
peoples rights to use a common word in the English language, then you
HAVE started arguing semantics, whether you want to or not. And whether
you mean to or not.
And quite frankly, your arguments are not very strong. They may feel
very strong to you personally, because you have some very personal
notion of freedom, but when you start a public argument you have to
realize that not everybody is Jay. And we (including the FSF) very much
have the right to disagree with your definition of what is free, and
what is not.
And while I personally use the phrase "Open Source" because I disagree
with the FSF on many things, I do not think you are right in trying to
(re-)define the meaning of the word "freedom". They have an equal right
to use that word as you do, and I would say that the common semantics
for the word are _not_ perverted by them any more than it is by you.
And you not realizing this only show yourself to have a very limited
understanding of other peoples ideas and notions.
In short: you're arguing on very slippery ground, and you look silly for
doing so.
The ONE rule about freedom is: everybody wants it for themselves, yet
wants to take it away from others. You want freedom, yet you don't want
to let other people decide what freedom even IS.
Think about it.
Linus
Linus Torvalds
>costs (in division, duplication of effort, etc.) of copyleft on the free
>software world in order to withhold their software from those who
>chose a different license for their own derivative work. (Derivative
>in the sense that a device driver is a derivative of an OS kernel,
>per foolish copyright law. But that's a different subject.) It's
>even more ironic when it's stated "let the author chose the license".
Oh, but any GPL person is MORE than happy to have people choose
something else than the GPL. In fact, at least for me that's part of
the self-selection process for developers.
It's just that there is a tit-for-tat: if you are my friend and let me
work with you, I will be your friend and let you work with me.
If my code is so insignificant that you don't think it's a fair deal,
then you can, and should, always choose to just ignore it, and write
your own version.
And if it turns out that my (and other peoples) software is so critical
to your project that you are convinced to use it, then obviously we've
done something for you.
Fair is fair. You have the choice of ignoring the code I write, but I
have the choice of ignoring you and not letting you change it. Do you
_really_ think that is unfair? Remember - it's NOT your code.
There are technical advantages here - it keeps people honest. It allows
forking - which is absolutely critical for good development - while
always also requiring that people always have to be able to "merge back"
(or "merge sideways" or "merge forward" - there are lots of licenses
that allow merging only one way, but the GPL explicitly makes it clear
that _anybody_ can merge, not just the originating person. Again, that
keeps people honest).
But there are also social advantages. It keeps the whiners and
free-riders away. And to me, that's a big advantage, actually. I don't
have to deal with people who think they are "entitled" to my code. I
only occasionally peek in to gnu.misc.discuss to see who is the latest
person who is misguided enough to think that "freedom" means "no
responsibility".
Linus
Jonathan Thornburg
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote
>for me, the highest and best moral idea is that people
>should be free to act as they wish as long as they do not harm others
>without their consent. (People may harm others with their consent, as long
>as that consent is fully informed and freely given. See, for example, BDSM.)
Interesting question to ponder: should slavery be allowed with
the consent of the slave? I believe Jay is saying "yes".
--
-- Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@thp.univie.ac.at>
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/~jthorn/home.html
Only 6 countries in the world have the death penalty for children:
Congo, Iran, Nigeria, (Pakistan), Saudi Arabia, United States, Yemen
(Pakistan reportedly ended it in July 2000) -- Amnesty International
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR511392000
Linus Torvalds
>
>Licenses for free software don't encumber add on software, licenses for
>free software don't require any actions other than those necessary for
>attribution (e.g. Signed paintings), and for informing subsequent recipients
>of the software the terms for use and/or redistribution.
You saying so doesn't make it so.
Are you a "free person"?
Apparently, according to your rather one-sided above definition of
"free", that means that there are no additional encumbrances for using
you, except maybe the acknowledgement that you were used.
So according to your above definition of free, I should be able to do
with you whatever I like, including using you as a personal slave and
have you wash my feet whenever my little toesies get dirty. "Kneel
before me, uncouth knave, my toesis dost be dirty".
Do you seriously mean that? According to your novel interpretation of
the English language, "free people" are people who you can use to your
hearts content, without worrying about getting any permission to do so
from anybody else?
Now do you not see how your personal definition of "freedom" has
absolutely _nothing_ to do with reality?
So take a step back, take a deep breath, and THINK. You being a "free
person" does NOT mean that others can do as they wish to you. Quite the
reverse, in fact. You are a free person exactly because others can NOT
impose their will on you.
Now, take that, and use the word "software" instead of "person". And
realize that the "free software" is about the _software_ being free.
Not _you_ being free to do whatever you want with it. It's not about
anybody being able to abuse the software any which way they like. Quite
the reverse. "Free software" is software that nobody can shackle to
some particular use. "Free software" doesn't get "enslaved" to a person
or corporation. It maintains a lack of control over it by anybody.
See? The word "free" is not such a simple thing after all. And maybe
you could admit some day that your stupid crusade against people calling
it "free software" is just that - stupid. You're trying to restrict the
word "free" to a meaning that it simply DOES NOT have.
Yes, the word "free" can also mean "you get it for free", ie "no strings
tied". And that is the traditional meaning used for inanimate objects.
But the FSF clearly states that they are talking not about that kind of
"no money" "free", but the more complex issue of "freedom" - the meaning
of the word that "free person" has, NOT the meaning of the word that
"free lunch" has.
YOU are asking for a "free lunch" kind of freedom.
The FSF talks about a "free person" kind of freedom.
Get that. And get the fact that "free" means more than you want it to
mean, and that the FSF has a strong case for their use of the word too.
And your refusal to understand that is ludicrous. Your total inability
to understand that "free" is not just about "free lunch", and that
others have equally valid (and much more philosophical) definitions of
the word "free", is incredible.
Now, it is such lack of understanding that makes me personally prefer
"Open Source". However, it still amazes me that people like you can
argue for YEARS against the accepted use of the word "free", just
because you _refuse_ to acknowledge that "free" means more than just
"free lunch".
What drugs do you use that limit your understanding so?
And this despite the fact that the FSF goes to some _pain_ to try to
make it easier to figure out.
Just give up, John. There are two meanings for the word "free". We
already know you want a free lunch. But give the English language the
respect it deserves, and do not try to ignore the fact that the other,
conceptually much more interesting meaning, also exists. And is a
perfectly valid use of the word "free".
It's doubly ironic, that you try to argue that the word "free" should
mean "free lunch", and then go on to argue that "free" is too important
a word to be used lightly - and in the second part of the argument
you've obviously switched the meaning of "free" to the "land of the
free" kind of "free".
That isn't logical, John. Either "free" means the "no ties, you can do
what you want" kind of "free lunch" thing, in which case we're certainly
not talking about great thinkers of our times, and THAT use of the word
"free" does not merit any lofty idealism. THAT use of the word "free"
gets used in every advertising jingle ever thought up: "20% more free
for the same price".
OR we're talking about "free" as in the lofty "you cannot shackle my
mind" kind of freedom, in which case the FSF _is_ right, and in which
case the word "free" _does_ indeed merit some reverence.
But you're trying to have it both ways - you want the free lunch, AND
you want the reverence for it. That doesn't make any sense. But
neither do the rest of your arguments, so I guess that's just par for
the course.
Whether you like the FSF notion of "freedom of software" or not is
immaterial. As Jay said, "freedom" is also about being able to piss
people off, and the FSF has that kind of freedom too (which is not about
the software being free, but the FSF being free - which again does not
mean that you can do anything you want to them).
And it obviously pisses you off that you don't get a free lunch, yet
people still can use the word "free". You'd much rather have software
that was slave to your smallest whim. You'd rather have software that
you could rape and use as you see fit without anybody having any say on
it. And you'd like to call that "freedom".
I bet the plantation owners found it distateful to have THEIR freedom to
treat people like their personal toys taken away from them in the name
of freedom. Freedom of the slaves, not of the plantation owners.
Understand that. It's the _software_ that is free. It is not you who
are free to do whatever you want with it. So the term "free software"
makes perfect sense, and does not actually imply any slight of the
English language.
Tough. Learn to deal with it, instead of whining (incorrectly) about
other peoples use of language.
Linus