[GLLUG] Burnbox Future

[Richard Houser]

STeve Andre' wrote:
>    Yes, its great for the recipient.  Thats the entire point.

Clay isn't the recipient, he's the developer.  He can always issue a 
more relaxed license later, he can't take one already released back. 
It's in Clay's best interests to not release this code under the BSD 
license if he thinks he might like to sell it commercially one day.

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?

HP can take OpenSSH, modify it, and then include in in their routers. 
True, the code base started more secure, but now I cannot verify that 
the code I received is in fact secure.  We are back to the user being 
unable to trust a questionable closed source software because an 
otherwise open source program has been closed sourced by HP.  As soon as 
the software is closed, all the additional benefits to the community are 
lost.  In such a case, OpenSSH would have saved HP a lot of money and 
helped it stay in a market it was exploiting.  Society's resources could 
obviously be better spent elsewhere as HP is just rewriting a utility 
that already exists and is free for use by all.

Personally, I would have rather they wrote a horrid and crufty version, 
bake it in, and get a bad reputation because of it.  Alternatively, they 
could spend a bundle and write a very nice one almost up to part with 
OpenSSH.  Eventually, the competitors using a completely open source SSH 
implementation should win out due to the lower costs and higher quality. 
  It may take a hundred years, but logically, free software should 
triumph in the end.

It's also useful to note that OpenSSH is not just under a BSD style 
license.  It has aspects similar to the Apache license which bar 
derivative works from using the names ssh or Secure Shell unless the 
protocol is maintained in accordance with the descriptions spelled out. 
  This clause keeps HP from extending the SSH client and making it 
incompatible with others.  This condition works like some of the GPL 
restrictions in keeping derivative works from being extended into an 
incompatible form and then being closed off from the community.


>    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.

The "your" in this sentence is preserving the rights of the developer, 
NOT the recipient.  If you don't want to preserve those rights, you are 
free to do so by choosing another license or gifting the work to the 
public domain.

>    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.

I don't distribute anything non-trivial under BSD style licenses.  It's 
more important for me to ensure that my contributions continue to 
benefit the community at large and don't end up getting closed source 
and used to the detriment of that community.  I don't feel that giving 
others the ability to close source my work is worth the damage it can 
cause to the community.  In general, someone attempting to do that is



Anyhow, I'm not going to argue; it's getting too late.  You are 
obviously of the opinion that it's better to give everyone the 
opportunity to profit from your work, even at the expense of assisting 
others to repress society as a whole.  I obviously disagree, and always 
will.


> 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'
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user at egr.msu.edu
> http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user