[GLLUG] Burnbox Future

[STeve Andre']

   Yes, its great for the recipient.  Thats the entire point.  Giving the
software to the world, to help it as much as possible.  What you see
as a danger, I see as something fantastic.  Take OpenSSH: which
would you rather see: HP writing their own horrid and crufty version
of it and bake it into switches such that they have interesting bugs,
or their taking OpenSSH, and using a far higher quality code base,
such that it, at least, is secure?

   Yes, MS could do that.  So what?  The purpose of open-source
code IS TO BE OPEN.  And I say, free for whatever use, as well.  This
is why I pretty much detest the paternalistic 'to preserve your
rights we have to take some away' approach of the GPL.

   I'm coming to the conclusion that a lof of folks in the Linux
camp only want to spread their code under specific conditions.
Thats OK, they absolutely have the right, but it isn't free.  Not
really.

--STeve Andre'

On Friday 27 April 2007 21:24:47 Richard Houser wrote:
> Steve,
>
> The BSD license gives the RECIPIENT of the software maximal freedom, not
> the copyright holder.  The copyright holder always has additional rights
> in excess of the BSD or GPL licenses.  The GPL is an attempt to strike a
> balance between the "gift" of content to public domain and the default
> restrictions of copyright law.  The BSD licenses are little more than
> "do what you want with it, but you can't plagiarized our work and claim
> you wrote it".
>
> The danger of the BSD license is that it allows others to take your work
> and then improve it just enough to take a chunk of the market and close
> the source on it.  I'm talking about something like Microsoft extending
> a product so that it is no longer compatible with the original, closing
> the source, and selling it as their own.
>
> If Clay wanted to sell his software at a later date, he is free to do so
> under any license he wishes.  A competitor basing a product off his work
> would either have to get a new license from Clay due to his copyright
> (which could very result in a BSD style license or a complete transfer
> of copyright) or release any distribution of its product under the GPL
> as well.  This protects Clay's own work from being used against him to
> steal his product's potential market.
>
> The BSD licenses are great for mass adoption, but much less optimal for
> the developer or his project's survival in the market (whether offered
> for free or not).  If the rest of the open source community didn't agree
> in general, the GPL wouldn't have caught on in such a big way.
>
> STeve Andre' wrote:
> > I do not want to start a flame fest over this, but I can't let that
> > comment about BSD licenses go uncommented on.  A BSD license gives the
> > maximum flexability.  If you use a GPL license companies are far more
> > likely to stay away from it, due to the viral concepts in it.  Companies
> > *do* buy BSD licensed stuff.  Usually they do so because they then know
> > that they can get help from the author.  A few thousands of dollars for
> > something already written is *far* cheaper than attempting to write it
> > in-house.
> >
> > I prefer the BSD license because of its simplicity.  In consulting once I
> > was dealing with two laywers who were coming up to speed on open source
> > licenses.  After they got over the concept of someone handing out the
> > code for free with no expectations of anything (BSD), they got to the GPL
> > and started pondering it.  And pondered more.  They understood the idea
> > (and apprecaited it) of the GPL but saw interesting parts which a shark
> > laywer could chomp on and do things with.
> >
> > --STeve Andre'