Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand Together"
and...@fix.no
I'm a little dissatisfied with the fact that it seems Bruce Perens
doesn't seem to want to include any BSD persons on a list of "free
software leaders". Is he really that much of a zealot, and does he lack
history knowledge? Or is it just me that got this all wrong? Did he
actually ask any BSD persons?
Anyway, the URL: http://perens.com/Articles/StandTogether.html
Please Cc: me as I don't usually read this list.
Cheers,
--
Anders.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
D...@silver-lynx.com
Anders Nordby wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm a little dissatisfied with the fact that it seems Bruce Perens
> doesn't seem to want to include any BSD persons on a list of "free
> software leaders". Is he really that much of a zealot, and does he lack
> history knowledge? Or is it just me that got this all wrong? Did he
> actually ask any BSD persons?
>
He says quite clearly that he is focusing on GPL. That's his right.
There's nothing stopping us from doing likewise. He obviously believes
the GPL is a "better" license. Perhaps we can ask Chris Coleman to add a
page to DaemonNews.org with a simple PHP/MySQL sign-up so that we can
_all_ add our signatures and e-mails to such a letter. Come to think of
it, this would probably be a great way to tell how many users *BSD
actually has...
--
Don Wilde http://www.Silver-Lynx.com
Silver Lynx Embedded Microsystems Architects
2218 Southern Bl. Ste. 12 Rio Rancho, NM 87124
505-891-4175 FAX 891-4185
n...@mithrandr.moria.org
> I'm a little dissatisfied with the fact that it seems Bruce Perens
> doesn't seem to want to include any BSD persons on a list of "free
> software leaders". Is he really that much of a zealot, and does he lack
> history knowledge? Or is it just me that got this all wrong? Did he
> actually ask any BSD persons?
>
> Anyway, the URL: http://perens.com/Articles/StandTogether.html
>
> Please Cc: me as I don't usually read this list.
He didn't ask. (Check
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-05-15-021-20-OS-CY-MS-0006)
Neil
--
Neil Blakey-Milner
n...@mithrandr.moria.org
na...@mips.inka.de
> I'm a little dissatisfied with the fact that it seems Bruce Perens
> doesn't seem to want to include any BSD persons on a list of "free
> software leaders".
And if you actually read the text, you will realize that it is
explicitly pro-GPL.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
gr...@lemis.com
>
>
> Anders Nordby wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a little dissatisfied with the fact that it seems Bruce Perens
>> doesn't seem to want to include any BSD persons on a list of "free
>> software leaders". Is he really that much of a zealot, and does he lack
>> history knowledge? Or is it just me that got this all wrong? Did he
>> actually ask any BSD persons?
>>
> He says quite clearly that he is focusing on GPL. That's his right.
> There's nothing stopping us from doing likewise. He obviously believes
> the GPL is a "better" license. Perhaps we can ask Chris Coleman to add a
> page to DaemonNews.org with a simple PHP/MySQL sign-up so that we can
> _all_ add our signatures and e-mails to such a letter. Come to think of
> it, this would probably be a great way to tell how many users *BSD
> actually has...
*sigh* Bruce seems to be apprehensive about our reaction. In his
words, we should "stand together", not set up our own reaction. I've
replied to the thread in this vein.
Greg
--
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
sdkr...@tristate.edu
Source? Further how is the licensing for BSD different from Linux distros,
or BSD different from Linux for that matter?
PLEASE don't flame me I'm not trying to start trouble I'm looking for
information. If this isn't the sort of discussion you have on list then
feel free to email me off list @ sdkr...@tristate.edu
Seth "Cosmo" Kramer
"I wish to God these calculations had been performed by steam."
-Charles Babbage
gr...@lemis.com
> Humor a newbie. What exactly is the difference between GPL and Open
> Source? Further how is the licensing for BSD different from Linux
> distros, or BSD different from Linux for that matter?
*sigh* This looks like being a long thread. Let's see if I can put
the terms into perspective.
1. Free Software is the term Richard Stallman uses for any software
which is freely redistributable without fees payable to the
author.
2. The GNU General Public License is a license which enforces freedom
of software. A program licensed under the GPL must remain free;
you can't incorporate it in something else and sell it unless you
make the source code available.
3. The BSD license is a free software license which does not enforce
freedom of software in the same way as the GPL. A program
licensed under the BSD license may be incorporated in something
else and sold. It's freer than the GPL, but it's also less
attractive to big companies currently releasing their code as
source, since they're worried about their competitors getting hold
of their technology and incorporating it in their own for-sale
products.
4. Open Source is a term Eric Raymond uses to make free software
palatable to commercial entities who might look at "free software"
and decide it's worth what you pay for it.
Greg
--
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
brian_...@dnr.state.ak.us
> > I frankly see little evidence that the GPL worries the BSD faction.
>
> Then you're closing your eyes. We're continually seeing threads
> bashing the GPL. Look at the thread "Stallman stalls again", in which
> you participated. This thread also appears to be FUD against the GPL.
I agree with Greg completely on this point. I've been a lurker on
several *BSD mailing lists and some other open-source related lists and
I still don't understand the problem people have with GPL vs. BSD or
other free/open licenses. But there definitely seems to be a nasty tone
to many of the comments regarding the GPL on this and other BSD forums
that could be interpreted as "fear".
And why would programmers on the GPL side fear the BSD license? Unless
I've completely missed something, they could quite easily make use of
all the BSD code they like in GPL software. The idea that nothing in
the original is lost if someone uses it elsewhere still applies, for
both licenses.
> >>> VA Linux, Red Hat, and all of those distributors, all of their
> >>> business models are the same - at one end they suck in GPL code and
> >>> at the other end spit out finished UNIX-like distributions, and make
> >>> money doing it.
> >>
> >> They're not making money doing it. They're *trying* to make money
> >> doing it.
Not only that, but Red Hat has made huge contributions of GPL licensed
code, including major parts of GNOME, their installer (copied and
improved on by other distributors), RPM(even if I don't like it much, it
is a big contribution and seems to have inspired much improvement in
package management by others) and probably other pieces that I'm not
aware of. People here and in even in some of the Linux forums don't
seem to give them much credit for their faithfulness to the letter and
spirit to the GPL.
After saying all that in their defense, I should say that I like other
Linux distributions better than Red Hat and I don't use GNOME or RPM if
I can help it. I like the *bsds and ports/packages better. Still, Red
Hat contributes back as much or more to GPL software than almost any
large company.
And whatever else you might criticize about GPL software, if a company
is using it in compliance with the license, they cannot "steal" it or
re-sell any of it without providing the source code of their
"improvements" under the terms of the GPL also.
BSD license allows companies to "suck in" the code and redistribute
proprietary derivatives without contributing anything back. However, if
that bothers you, don't release code under the BSD license. The BSD
license appears to be for those who only want their software to be used
- for any purpose others might find useful. It's very altruistic that
way.
The point of this is: Ted's criticism would apply more to companies
using BSD code without contributing back than to any companies selling
GPL code.
> > Besides that, all of those people _personally_ made a lot of money
> > by selling stock right after IPO. How do you think that Eric
> > Raymond survives anyway when he has no job (other than being GPL
> > playboy at various GPL conferences and such)
>
> I haven't investigated. But he must get a lot of book royalties.
Are you sure Eric and others were able to sell their IPO shares before
they fell? It is, IIRC, illegal to sell IPO shares before the passage
of a certain amount of time, 6 months to a year maybe? That would have
made Eric's millions a lot smaller - assuming that he actually tried to
cash in his VALinux shares as soon as possible.
It certainly makes news when Bill Gates sells significant amounts of MS
shares. I haven't heard of the big names in the Linux IPOs selling off
their shares.
> >>> So, it's kind of a "friend of my enemy is my enemy" What I see in
> >>> the future, is I see Microsoft porting MS Office to MacOS X - which
> >>> is a hell of a lot closer to BSD then it is to Linux. I also see
> >>> that as Microsoft continues to build the case against GPL and
> >>> propgandize against it, that they are increasingly going to be
> >>> holding up BSD as the "right" way to do Open Source.
I'll believe that when I see it. They don't seem to agree that BSD
license is the right way to release their own "open source" code. Of
course using BSD code would be a different story.
> >>> Increasingly, their aims and goals are going to be
> >>> different than ours.
The FSF works to make all software free software, and the GPL tries to
perpetuate that. That's the only real difference in "their" goals and
"our" goals. As I said above, the BSD license is used when the author
wants their code used by as many programmers as possible. Using the GPL
means that your software will only be used by programmers that write
software that is also "free" by the GPL definition of free. Those are
different aims and goals, but not of the sort that should cause so much
friction between them.
> >> Certainly if we take your viewpoint. You've made a lot of claims
> >> there, but I don't see much substantiation, and the viewpoints are
> >> very different from what I've experienced first-hand. I work with
> >> some leading Linux people, and while there are many things I don't
> >> like about Linux, I can't see anything like what you're claiming here.
> >
> > I judge the Linux crowd by the public statements they make and the
> > public things that they do.
I haven't really seen the public statements by the leading GPL people
that are so anti-bsd as you claim. I don't know any of them first hand,
but when RMS came to speak in our city, I went to listen. Many of the
points he makes in a (very) lengthy discussion of the GPL/GNU project
apply equally to the BSD. He just wants all software to be free. If
all software was GPL software, there would be no real problem with
anyone's use of anyone else's code. That's probably a bit of an
idealistic (unrealistic?) vision, but then RMS seems comfortable in the
role of visionary dreamer. That's a bit of a compliment, btw, society
needs dreamers and visionaries to push the limits of the possible.
> > There's a history of GPL people
> > publically putting down the BSD license, and then something like
> > this "Free Software Leaders Stand Together" comes along and they
> > make no effort to publically reach out to the BSD people.
>
> There's a history of BSD people publically putting down the GPL
> license, and then something like this "Free Software Leaders Stand
> Together" comes along and they make no effort to publically reach out
> to the BSD people. When they attempt to make up for it, some BSD
> people get up on their hind legs and doubt their motives.
I agree with both of these comments, but then these "crowds" are made up
of many individuals, making it difficult to put specific words in the
mouths of the whole "crowd" just because one person gets irritated and
spouts off.
> > I don't see the same posturing from BSD.
>
> That must be your perspective, then, modulo your definition of
> "posturing". You want those 350 mail messages? If that's not enough,
> I can send you another 400 or so off the less rabid Brett Glass rants.
I've not saved all that, but I've read too much of it.
> I can see at least as much evidence that some BSD people fear the GPL,
> possibly more. I think it's the basis of this thread.
Disappointing to me, but I believe that Greg is correct here.
> > Incidents like Bruce ignoring BSD in his response are just more and
> > more nails in the coffin of GPL<->BSD friendship. And, it's not the
> > BSD people that are doing the nailing.
>
> I see a lot of nails in this thread. Quite honestly, after reading
> what you've written, I can't blame Bruce. Remember his statement:
>
> I wonder what the BSD reaction in general would have been? Although
> I assume they use gcc, some of them have been rather GPL-hostile.
> Hopefully they'd be able to stand together with everyone else.
>
> I think this thread has vindicated his standpoint.
Sad, but true. I happen to think Bruce is a pretty bright guy who has a
lot of practical common sense to go along with his free software
beliefs. He doesn't seem afraid to step on toes in calling it how he
sees it. A lot of Linux people have taken offense to Bruce's comments
at times too. I think people should be less offended by this sort of
honest, blunt talk. I much prefer it to so much fake niceness.
Basically, if you don't like his comments, the proper response is to do
or say something to change his mind - at least you know what he really
thinks.
> Greg
> --
> When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
> original text.
> For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
I tried to comply, but Netscape no longer works as it did. I believe it
still wraps outgoing messages whether I like it or not, it won't take 0
as an entry anymore. I do much better when I have PINE for email.
Brian Raynes
te...@toybox.placo.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG
>[mailto:owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Seth Kramer
>Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 6:09 PM
>To: freebsd-...@FreeBSD.ORG
>Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand
>Together"
>
>
>Source? Further how is the licensing for BSD different from Linux distros,
>or BSD different from Linux for that matter?
>
go here
for details.
Ted Mittelstaedt te...@toybox.placo.com
Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com
te...@toybox.placo.com
>From: owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG
>[mailto:owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Brian Raynes
>Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 7:17 PM
>To: Greg Lehey; freebsd-...@FreeBSD.ORG
>Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand
>Together"
>
>
>I've completely missed something, they could quite easily make use of
>all the BSD code they like in GPL software. The idea that nothing in
>the original is lost if someone uses it elsewhere still applies, for
>both licenses.
>
Because, IF your desired goal of GPL is to "virally infect" all software
to force it to be open, then you would rightly fear BSD because it's an
alternative.
Actually, it's not the BSD license that the GPL fears as much as the _idea_
of the BSD license. The BSD license assumes people will do the Right Thing
and open their code. There's no hooks in there to force people to do it.
GPL on the other hand forces you to open your code, and there are hooks
to do it.
If you want all Open Source software to be GPL "contaminated" so that it
will
be forced to be open forever, then the last thing you want is BSD licensing
that allows people to take their modifications private.
Ted Mittelstaedt te...@toybox.placo.com
Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com
>
gr...@lemis.com
On Friday, 18 May 2001 at 23:06:33 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2001 10:45 AM, David Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, what has happened is that Bruce and his friends
>>> (the signatories on the list of that article are a who's
>>> who of them) have literally made millions of dollars out of
>>> in effect convincing a bunch of developers to GPL their
>>> code, then those Open Source people have set themselves up
>>> in the only point in the GPL code distributon scheme (the
>>> nexus points) where it's possible to make a lot of money.
>>
>> Many of those signatories most assuredly are *not* GPL fanatics. Tim
>> O'Reilly surely isn't.
>
> Um, I happen to know that Tim O'Reilly has been approached with SEVERAL
> FreeBSD book projects, including my own, and has turned them all
> down.
Well, it's not Tim O'Reilly any more, it's his editors.
A bit of background: Some years ago O'Reilly printed the complete
4.4BSD Lite documentation in five volumes. It was a complete flop.
As a result, they've been very wary about bringing out another book on
BSD.
> Well, mine is successful (at least, I'm told it is although I have yet
> to see sales figures) and how smart is it for a book publisher to turn
> down a successful book project and let a competitor take it? That was a
> political decision, not a professional one.
>
> Ask Greg if he's had any luck shopping HIS book to O'Reilly.
Why don't you? No, they didn't want "The Complete FreeBSD". Instead
I'm writing a book for them with the tentative title "Advanced BSD
System Administration".
> Not that I have any evidence that he ever has done so, but I'd be
> surprised if he hasn't. I wouldn't think that Wind River is going
> to want to be in the book publishing business, and it's a natural
> and obvious move for The Complete FreeBSD to go to O'Reilly.
> Certainly it would enhance the book, it would enhance O'Reilly, and
> it would help BSD penetration.
Wind River has stated that they do want to be in the publishing
business, though I agree that's a bit surprising.
> [snipped; nothing here that we haven't already discussed]
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
original text.
For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
te...@toybox.placo.com
>From: Greg Lehey [mailto:gr...@lemis.com]
>Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 4:33 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: David Johnson; freebsd-...@FreeBSD.ORG
>Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand
>Together"
>
>
>
:-) Yes, that may be the case but ultimately Tim is responsible.
Certainly if Tim told his editors to find and get a BSD book out, I
would think they would be quite more motivated than they are.
>A bit of background: Some years ago O'Reilly printed the complete
>4.4BSD Lite documentation in five volumes. It was a complete flop.
>As a result, they've been very wary about bringing out another book on
>BSD.
>
Well, I remember paging through that in the bookstore once, and while I
admit I didn't look through all volumes (they wern't all there) what I
remember of it was mainly reprints of the system manual pages. Not
much to recommend purchase as the price was rather high.
>
>Why don't you? No, they didn't want "The Complete FreeBSD". Instead
>I'm writing a book for them with the tentative title "Advanced BSD
>System Administration".
>
That's the best BSD book news I've heard in a long time! I do hope that
it sees print - lots can derail these projects.
>
>Wind River has stated that they do want to be in the publishing
>business, though I agree that's a bit surprising.
>
Hmm... Well the proof is in the pudding as they say, and we will just need
to see The Complete FreeBSD 4th Edition with Wind River's name on it, now
won't we? ;-)
Ted Mittelstaedt te...@toybox.placo.com
Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
li...@markemmanuel.org
publicly attacking BSD supporters and the license. It makes no sense to
argue which is better or which isn't. It's such an individualistic choice
by a company or a person. One isn't better than the other. I mean geez...
BSD uses a boatload of GPL'd tools.
Personally, I like the BSD license because it doesn't force me to do
anything. If I ever decided to code for anything GPL'd, it kinda makes me
feel like I'm doing time for using the software. Then again, it is
ultimately your decision to contribute or not. If you don't like BSD, don't
use it. If you don't like GPL'd don't use it.
Honestly, the people that tend to argue the BSD vs. GPL case on either side
often are doo doo heads with nothing better to do. To understand what I
mean just check out any thread on slashdot, linuxtoday or even on these
mailing lists.
Okay, I'm done ranting now. Have a nice day! :)
markemmanuel
Quoted from the Book of Greg Lehey Ch 6:7-13 on 5/18/01 6:58 PM:
> There's a history of BSD people publically putting down the GPL
> license, and then something like this "Free Software Leaders Stand
> Together" comes along and they make no effort to publically reach out
> to the BSD people. When they attempt to make up for it, some BSD
> people get up on their hind legs and doubt their motives.
li...@markemmanuel.org
> Um, I happen to know that Tim O'Reilly has been approached with SEVERAL
> FreeBSD book projects, including my own, and has turned them all down.
> Well, mine is successful (at least, I'm told it is although I have yet
> to see sales figures) and how smart is it for a book publisher to turn
> down a successful book project and let a competitor take it? That was a
> political decision, not a professional one.
>
> Ask Greg if he's had any luck shopping HIS book to O'Reilly. Not that I
> have any evidence that he ever has done so, but I'd be surprised if he
> hasn't. I wouldn't think that Wind River is going to want to be in the
> book publishing business, and it's a natural and obvious move for The
> Complete FreeBSD to go to O'Reilly. Certainly it would enhance the book,
> it would enhance O'Reilly, and it would help BSD penetration.
>
> O'Reilly makes plenty of money off Linux, and has much vested interest
> in GPL. And, I didn't call them "fanatics", you just did.
Since MacOS X came out, there have been a number of MacOS X articles on
their website. Don't they have books on Apache and isn't Apache under a BSD
like license? GPLesque software is also in fashion as well. It's no wonder
why they're focusing on GPL licensed software.
li...@markemmanuel.org
> Yes, there's no shortage of BSD followers bashing GPL, and vis-versa. Bu=
t,
> I guess I don't see the bashing being carried out by the BSD leadership,
> like
> McKusick for example. Contrast this to Linus calling MacOS X "crap"
Linus called MacOS X crap because it is a micro kernel instead of a
monolithic kernel. I don't recall Mr. Torvalds stating it's crap because
aspects of it was BSD based.
> And, as far as public statements, Bruce's "FREE SOFTWARE LEADERS STAND
> TOGETHER"
> document stands for itself as an example of the proof of my statement tha=
t
> they (meaning GPL) are rapidly becoming more united.
Yeah, they're becoming more united but I stopped using Linux temporarily
because their community support and the community in general started acting
like elitists towards new users like me. I often see that in any
organization. I also don't like that viral feeling I get from them. It
seems like a Microsoft mentality except it's an open source initiative.
That bothers me also.
They also claim they have this Cathedral and Bazaar thing going on where
developers in the bazaar improves builds and improves the code. Often
times, it feels like Linus is the Pope of Linux and he has the ultimate say
so as to what goes into the kernel. The BSDs seems to be more like a
republic. This is an entirely different topic.
To quote R. Kelly... "'Who gives a f#=A2k about what they think,' is what my
Audrey used to say. 'You just keep doing own thing boy and see your praises
come your way'" We'll see what happens in the near future with the Linux
trying to not fragment because of all those distributions creating new
'standards' It is certainly annoying to work with RedHat and then use
Debian for find that things are placed in different directories. I also
don't like the fact that some software is packaged in rpms instead of debs.
Again, these are only my opinions.
Markemmanuel
gr...@lemis.com
On Friday, 18 May 2001 at 23:12:53 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2001 7:17 PM, Brian Raynes wrote:
>>
>> And why would programmers on the GPL side fear the BSD license? Unless
>> I've completely missed something, they could quite easily make use of
>> all the BSD code they like in GPL software. The idea that nothing in
>> the original is lost if someone uses it elsewhere still applies, for
>> both licenses.
>
> Because, IF your desired goal of GPL is to "virally infect" all
> software to force it to be open, then you would rightly fear BSD
> because it's an alternative.
What does this have to do with reality? Again, it sounds like FUD.
> Actually, it's not the BSD license that the GPL fears as much as the
> _idea_ of the BSD license. The BSD license assumes people will do
> the Right Thing and open their code. There's no hooks in there to
> force people to do it. GPL on the other hand forces you to open
> your code, and there are hooks to do it.
>
> If you want all Open Source software to be GPL "contaminated" so
> that it will be forced to be open forever, then the last thing you
> want is BSD licensing that allows people to take their modifications
> private.
You're about the only person talking about "contamination". I wish
you'd stop. You're just helping polarize the community, something the
rest of us are working against.
Let me give a counterexample. This polarization is not to our
advantage. It's not to the GPL community's advantage either. About
the only group who could benefit by increased polarization in the free
software community is Microsoft. I note a surprising
Microsoft-centricity in your messages, including typical format
breakage and a lack of trimming which ill befits an author. Are you
maybe working in Microsoft's interests?
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
original text.
For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
Finger gr...@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
gr...@lemis.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG
>> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 6:09 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand
>> Together"
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, 18 May 2001 at 23:12:53 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 18, 2001 7:17 PM, Brian Raynes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And why would programmers on the GPL side fear the BSD license? Unless
>>>> I've completely missed something, they could quite easily make use of
>>>> all the BSD code they like in GPL software. The idea that nothing in
>>>> the original is lost if someone uses it elsewhere still applies, for
>>>> both licenses.
>>>
>>> Because, IF your desired goal of GPL is to "virally infect" all
>>> software to force it to be open, then you would rightly fear BSD
>>> because it's an alternative.
>>
>> What does this have to do with reality? Again, it sounds like FUD.
>>
>
> create your own FUD and to be rediculous. Let me refer you to the
> following URL:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
*sigh*
> This is the point that I made earlier, it's the point that the GNU
> project makes in it's own writings. How many people need to sit
> here and bash this idea into your head until you get it?
None. I've had enough of this thread. I just plain disagree with
you, OK? The GPL has weaknesses, agreed, but so has the BSD license.
I refuse to look on people who prefer the GPL as being evil to the
core.
> If my bitching about it will make Bruce include BSD people next
> time, then I will have done far more to unite the Open Source
> community than anything that it appears that anyone else has done so
> far.
Your bitching is more likely to alienate BSD in the free software
community. I can't see anything good that it does. You're beginning
to sound like Brett Glass.
>> Let me give a counterexample. This polarization is not to our
>> advantage. It's not to the GPL community's advantage either.
>
> Um, well if that is the case then why didn't Bruce include us?
You still don't know? I think I've told you three times.
Do me a favour, will you? Point us to a photo of you so we can be
sure you're not Brett Glass in disguise.
>> About the only group who could benefit by increased polarization in
>> the free software community is Microsoft.
>
> Actually, they would benefit more by us being lumped together with
> Linux.
>
> If your engaged in a massive PR campaign against a competitor,
> like Microsoft is with GPL, then it is in your interest if you are
> successfully able to propagandize the market that your competitor is
> just one drop in an ocean of competitors.
In other words "there are the Linux crowd, there are the *BSDs, who
don't even talk to each other". My case stands.
>> I note a surprising Microsoft-centricity in your messages,
>> including typical format breakage and a lack of trimming which ill
>> befits an author. Are you maybe working in Microsoft's interests?
>
> Greg, I hate to descend to this muck slinging level, but you started
> it.
Well, no, I just pointed out a parallel to your argumentation. I
never said, nor do I believe, that you're in the pay of Microsoft, but
people in the GPL camp might do, and I'd consider their arguments no
weaker than what you've presented in this thread.
> In contrast, is there anywhere in The Complete FreeBSD where YOU
> state that Microsoft is inferior and should be replaced, or that the
> company is criminal, or that it's like Sauron?
No. I consider this a feature, not a bug. A lot of us were turned
off by the vehement anti-Microsoft attitude in your book. Don't get
me wrong, I'm certainly not in favour of Microsoft. Catch me in
private for confirmation of that. But it has no place in my book, and
putting it there would turn off a number of people off FreeBSD.
> Greg, when Bruce Perens wrote his "stand together" document, he
> was making a big mistake; it's an egotistical kind of idea that "Hey,
> I'm so important that Microsoft is actually talking to ME"
>
> In reality, Greg Mundie, and Steve Ballmer and the rest of the major
> Microsoft executives, when they make speeches against Linux and Open
> Source, they are NOT addressing us, they are addressing all of the
> Windows administrators who are out there wondering "Gee, what's that
> Linux stuff all about, maybe I should check into it". Incidentally,
> this is the SAME market that MY book addresses. What is going on is
> that Microsoft knows that anyone who has really spent some time
> trying out FreeBSD, or Linux, or any other Open Source OS, well that
> administrator is a lost cause. They are never going to get him or
> her back into the fold.
Now there I can agree with you.
> By contrast,
>
> as more and more DIFFERENT groups adopt DIFFERENT licensing, and even
> stand independent of each other, all under the banner of Open
> Source, it's much harder to fight something like that.
Fractionally. The terms "open source" and "free software" both
embrace GPL, BSDL and a whole lot of others. I don't think the
target audience would notice the difference.
Greg
--
li...@markemmanuel.org
> So far, the
> Linux camp is the only ones that have been engaged in plain old
> media manipulation, and even then what they have done has been
> fumbling first steps. (and they peed away a lot of the attention
> that the sky-high IPO's generated last year, which was even worse)
> The BSD camp has pretty much totally failed at doing this,
> which is probably the biggest reason that we wern't included in
> Bruce Peren's essay.
Yeah, it's kinda nice like that. I think they have the media under their
belt because so many companies have embraced it like IBM. The BSDs don't
have large companies standing tall telling everyone how great BSD, how
they're puttting it on their hardware, porting their software to it, and how
it's the future of computing.
The only company that comes to mind is Apple but as we've seen on the
FreeBSD-Questions list, they're not very reputable among many users because
they don't use a x86 chip in their boxes.
What the BSDs need is a good ole advertising campaign. :) What it doesn't
need are companies like Red Hat and VA Linux with common stock in the single
digits. Heh... Heh...
--markemmanuel
djoh...@acuson.com
> Well, I remember paging through that in the bookstore once, and while I
> admit I didn't look through all volumes (they wern't all there) what I
> remember of it was mainly reprints of the system manual pages. Not
> much to recommend purchase as the price was rather high.
That's what 75% of their X11 series was, and it sold very well.
I think the difference is that the X11 series was general to all unices,
while the 4.4BSD Lite was specific to a single OS. ORA publishes a lot
of Linux books because there is a big market demand for them. But there
isn't a big market demand for FreeBSD books. Unfortunate, but true.
This seems to be changing. The high Linux demand has fallen along with
the dot.coms, and the BSDs are getting more attention. Patience is
what's needed. Nobody in the publishing world knew what Linux was until
it reached a certain threshold, then *blam*! Every computer publisher
had their own line of Linux books. Eventually BSD will reach that
threshold. It won't be as dramatic, since we won't have the benefit of
the dot.com tide, but it will happen.
David
djoh...@acuson.com
>
> wow, greg you are that low...instead of arguing your case and
> substantiating your arguments you drift into personal accusations and
> borderline name calling...
Go check the history of the thread. Greg DID argue his case and he DID
substantiate his arguments.
In short, the unstoppable force met the immovable object. Something had
to give, and unfortunately it was Greg's patience. In my opinion he
should have just ignored the taunts. Oh well...
djoh...@acuson.com
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm a little dissatisfied with the fact that it seems Bruce Perens
> doesn't seem to want to include any BSD persons on a list of "free
> software leaders". Is he really that much of a zealot, and does he lack
> history knowledge? Or is it just me that got this all wrong? Did he
> actually ask any BSD persons?
Bruce is a very big GPL person, so much so that he quit the OSI because
they promoted openness instead of freedom.
However, the group of people he included is well representative of the
Open Source community. Richard Stallman and Miguel de Icaza are balanced
by Larry Wall and Guido Van Rossum.
David
djoh...@acuson.com
> Basically, what has happened is that Bruce and his friends
> (the signatories on the list of that article are a who's
> who of them) have literally made millions of dollars out of
> in effect convincing a bunch of developers to GPL their
> code, then those Open Source people have set themselves up
> in the only point in the GPL code distributon scheme (the
> nexus points) where it's possible to make a lot of money.
Many of those signatories most assuredly are *not* GPL fanatics. Tim
O'Reilly surely isn't. He's one of the very few who will call RMS out to
a debate in a public forum. Larry Wall surely isn't. He came up with the
Artistic License and his dual licensing scheme so that Perl could be
accepted as "Free" by the GNU crowd while at the same time gutting every
requirement in the GPL. And Guido von Rossum isn't. Just last month he
took RMS to task for continually changing the definition of
GPL-compatibility, and said that compatibility with the GPL would no
longer be a goal for the Python license.
If this list consisted solely of Linux distributors and GNU board
members, I would agree with you. But it appears that Bruce actually did
try to get a broad slice of the Open Source community.
tlam...@mindspring.com
>
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > Well, I remember paging through that in the bookstore
> > once, and while I admit I didn't look through all volumes
> > (they wern't all there) what I remember of it was mainly
> > reprints of the system manual pages. Not much to
> > recommend purchase as the price was rather high.
>
> That's what 75% of their X11 series was, and it sold very well.
>
> I think the difference is that the X11 series was general
> to all unices, while the 4.4BSD Lite was specific to a
> single OS. ORA publishes a lot of Linux books because there
> is a big market demand for them. But there isn't a big
> market demand for FreeBSD books. Unfortunate, but true.
They were 4.4BSD books, and they were 4.4BSD-Lite, at a
time that Lite2 was just about to be released, and had
been hyped a bunch already.
So they were out of date, and they had stale code (the
CDROM was a Lite CDROM, published by Usenix). The 4.4BSD
code from CSRG was a rather big disappointment, since it
didn't result in a running system.
So basically, it was stale documentation for broken code,
which was not entirely relevent to the systems derived
from that code.
I bought a set of the books, both because I could get a
full set all at once, and because they were much less to
carry around than my set of orange Ultrix manuals, which
they effectively replaced as my "almost applicable to
FreeBSD" manuals. It didn't hurt that much of the profit
was given over in support of Usenix, either.
I'm not really surprised that the books didn't sell that
well; I'm actually more surprised that they sold as well
as they did.
-- Terry
gr...@freebsd.org
The real issue that surprises me is the lack of understanding at
O'Reilly. As a result of the poor sales of these books, they
concluded that there was no market for any BSD book.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
res0...@gte.net
So Linus is Bilbo?
Raymond is Smeagol?
McKusick is Tom Bombadil?
The ring is the GPL?
[RC]
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:32:41AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG
> >[mailto:owner-freeb...@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Greg Lehey
> >Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 6:09 PM
> >To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> >Cc: Brian Raynes; freebsd-...@FreeBSD.ORG
> >Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand
> >Together"
> >
> >
Snip.
>
> In Chapter 10, on page 381, I liken Microsoft to the Dark Lord out of
> Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
te...@toybox.placo.com
to totally dominate everything, and Microsoft's drive to
dominate everything.
Of course, since Tolken's series really caught on in the
late 70's, it's ancient history to the generation today. Now we
have the parallels drawn between Microsoft and The Borg,
otherwise the young pups won't understand the analogy. :-)
But if I were to make more of an analogy between LoTR and
OSS, I'd say that the BSD community are the High Elves that
went West, while the Linux community are the Low Elves that
never made the trip. Both worked together and both had their
magic, but the High Elves were obviously much more powerful,
although not as numerous.
Ted Mittelstaedt te...@toybox.placo.com
Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide
Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com
j...@freebsd.org
On 23-May-01 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>:-) There's really only a parallel between Sauron's drive
> to totally dominate everything, and Microsoft's drive to
> dominate everything.
>
> Of course, since Tolken's series really caught on in the
> late 70's, it's ancient history to the generation today. Now we
> have the parallels drawn between Microsoft and The Borg,
> otherwise the young pups won't understand the analogy. :-)
So since I've read LoTR at least 15 times it means I'm a generational
misfit? :)
> But if I were to make more of an analogy between LoTR and
> OSS, I'd say that the BSD community are the High Elves that
> went West, while the Linux community are the Low Elves that
> never made the trip. Both worked together and both had their
> magic, but the High Elves were obviously much more powerful,
> although not as numerous.
Now referring to The Simirallion (sp?) is where you will lose people.
:) LoTR only touches on the difference between High and Low, whereas
TS covers it in greater detail. The rings are probably the markets in
the industry being competed over, and the desktop/server market would
probably only be the 3 elven rings anyways. I wouldn't say that the
desktop market is the One ring. Figuring out the symbolism of the 7
dwarven rings and 9 human rings is left as an exercise to the reader.
(bad pun)
--
John Baldwin <j...@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/