On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 03:38:13AM +0530, debian developer wrote: > Hello, > > Let me make a few things clear. I am a newbie. I'm not a troll but a > seriously curious guy wanting to know. > I searched google but could not find any clear explanation. Please > point me in the right direction if this has been discussed before. > Please spare me the flames and do not reply if you find this > offensive... I'm just trying to know. :) > I am a great fan of Theo and RMS. I've been reading a lot on the BSD > license and GPL license lately. > > I have a few questions(no, not which license is better.:): > > 1. BSD license is completely free. No one needs to give back changes > forcibly(the GPL way), hence this is completely free. > If what i hear is correct, there are companies(Microsoft) which > take BSD code (network stack i hear) and made it proprietary by not > giving back anything. What i don't understand is are we not loosing > anything in this case?? I can understand that there are many more > companies which have used the code(Apple) and given back but there are > also opposite ends...
no. nothing is lost, and something is gained. just because a company takes BSD code and makes a proprietary product out of it, does not mean the original code is any less free. and something is gained, because people are now using better code. you mention the IP stack. would you rather have to interoperate with a buggy MS produced stack? now let's turn that around. will MS use GPL code? probably not, at least not anytime soon. will GNU/Linux ever be as common as Windows? probably not, at least not any time soon. does GPL code end up helping the vast majority of computer users? not today, and probably not anytime soon. otoh, as you have pointed out, BSD code _is_ helping the vast majority of computer users, right now, today. you see, the GPL is, well, segregatory. it is based on lack of trust and the desire to control. > 2. I know many of you consider RMS a backstabber on the goals of > "freedom". What i don't understand is what is wrong in porting free > software to non-free platforms? the question is, how is porting free software to non-free platforms ok, but providing easier ways to install non-free software on free platforms wrong? the arguments, both pro and con, are ultimately the same. to say one way is wrong but the other is ok is hypocritical. > Shouldn't people caged on non-free > platforms know about the power of free software?? When there is no one > to explain to them what free software is, does'nt this porting get > atleast a percent of them interested in a successful and superior free > software product(like firefox)? pose that question to a non-nerd, and they will laugh at the idea that using non-free software cages them. they probably also use firefox but could care less about the license or the source code, and if you try to explain, they will just look blankly and say, "ok, but I really don't care as long as I can surf the `net." oh, and they only care about free as in they didn't pay anything. > Thank you for taking the time to read this. > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
