Will you use Vista or Switch to Linux?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
2.10

Well, the version number is the same. However, I don't see the sort of thing you described.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Then you're suggesting that the GPL is little more than an ego trip.

No. I suggest that the GPL is what allows FOSS to florish in the first place.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you really want useful things to happen to your code, you apply the BSD licence it so corporations can pour in investment. It makes sense for them to contribute code back in turn so that it gets tested by the BSD community. Seems to function pretty well, going on the quality of the code wouldn't you agree?

I am not sure what drugs you are on, but they must be pretty good. For starters, if commercial outlets were to release source code, why would they do it under BSD? Otherwise you wouldn't be seeing things such as software patents, copyright suits, DMCA, EULA, etc., etc.

Just look at Microsoft. They stole drive compression from Stac Eletronics (lost the court case fortunately), stole the TCP/IP from BSD, and stole DOS code from Digital Research.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
On the contrary to "lets everybody steal your stuff", it allows you as a software developer to maintain your IP rights and not be forced to communistically disseminate your code to the world. If it was essentially stagnant, then the BSD's wouldn't be thriving now.

1. Don't use the term "intellectual property." There is nothing similar amongst trademarks, patents, and copyrights. Using such a term indicates you are either confused or trying to confuse.

2. Explain how the BSD license allows anybody to maintain control over his or her work.

3. It appears you don't understand the GNU Public License. You should read it carefully here.

4. BSD has been overtaken by Linux. It may not be stagnant, but not exactly thriving.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
What I like about this quote is UR's backing up the concept of intellectual property.

Your master has stolen quite alot along the way. CP/M code, drive compression stuff, TCP/IP stack.

I don't think you are in the position to talk.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Your master has stolen quite alot along the way. CP/M code, drive compression stuff, TCP/IP stack.

I don't think you are in the position to talk.

I can see it flying over your head as you talk.

It's not called stealing if the code is used as the license dictates -- that's the purpose of the BSD license. It's non-political, as opposed to the GPL.

I think Windows was better off using the BSD TCP/IP stack -- it's an example of open source being used to better the world, rather than use it to push an agenda like you and Stallman want to do.

The whole point was you play down the concept of "intellectual property", which implies owning something like software, while at the same time blasting MS for "stealing" code. To steal something, it's got to be property, buddy.

You lack the brainpower to see the contradiction, but that's fine. It's par for the course for you types.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I can see it flying over your head as you talk.

Yeah, see who understands the issue better, shall we?

Originally posted by Asher
It's not called stealing if the code is used as the license dictates -- that's the purpose of the BSD license. It's non-political, as opposed to the GPL.

Now if can explain how the GPL is "political," seeing that it merely relaxes existing copyright laws, instead of giving up control entirely.

Originally posted by Asher
I think Windows was better off using the BSD TCP/IP stack -- it's an example of open source being used to better the world, rather than use it to push an agenda like you and Stallman want to do.

How did that better the world? It only fattened Microsoft's bank account. The BSD community received nothing in return - not even an acknowledgement from MS, which is a direct violation of BSD terms.

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Originally posted by Asher
The whole point was you play down the concept of "intellectual property", which implies owning something like software, while at the same time blasting MS for "stealing" code. To steal something, it's got to be property, buddy.

Ah, yes. More intentional uses of "intellectual property." Are you trying to talk about copyrights, patents, or trademarks?

Originally posted by Asher
You lack the brainpower to see the contradiction, but that's fine. It's par for the course for you types.

You can't dabate without insulting your opponents. Then again, what else is new?

Do consider yourself warned, Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Now if can explain how the GPL is "political," seeing that it merely relaxes existing copyright laws, instead of giving up control entirely.

The purpose and intent of the GPL is to proliferate open source software...

How did that better the world? It only fattened Microsoft's bank account. The BSD community received nothing in return - not even an acknowledgement from MS, which is a direct violation of BSD terms.

The BSD license was ammended removing the requirement for acknowledgement.
The BSD stack was a good stack, better than what MS had internally at the time, so the public benefitted from its use.

It's not about giving something to the people who wrote it, they chose to write the code and make it available for anyone to use how they wish.

Ah, yes. More intentional uses of "intellectual property." Are you trying to talk about copyrights, patents, or trademarks?

All of the above are specific ways to legally refer to intellectual propery in different ways.

Intellectual property does not equal copyrights, patents, and trademarks...in fact, it is a superset.

You can't dabate without insulting your opponents. Then again, what else is new?

Do consider yourself warned, Asher.

It's only an insult when it's true, and obviously so.

[Asher]

Educate yourself, UR:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357

I worked at Microsoft for ten years, most of it on the core Windows NT/2000 (hereafter referred to as NT) networking code.
...
Microsoft's networking software at the time ran over a network protocol called Netbeui, but it was decided that TCP/IP was gaining in importance, and should be included in NT. In addition, the user-mode API associated with Netbeui, which was called Netbios, was too Netbeui-specific and couldn't be adapted to allow user-mode access to TCP/IP. As a result, the decision was made:

1) To put a TCP/IP stack in NT

2) To adapt the sockets user-mode API for NT

#1 was solved by licensing code from a company called Spider Systems. However, Spider's TCP/IP stack was written to run within an environment called STREAMS, which was a wrapper that specified how the various parts of the stack would communicate with each other (TCP/IP is really several pieces of code -- two of which are TCP and IP -- layered on top of each other. Most network protocols are like that, which is why they are referred to as "stacks"). As a result, STREAMS also had to be ported to NT.

#2 involved the creation of the winsock API, which persists today.

It was recognized that using Spider's stack was a temporary measure, because nobody really wanted a stack that depended on STREAMS and its associated overhead. So, a short time after this, work was begun on a new version of TCP/IP, written entirely by Microsoft.

Along with Spider's stack came versions of various TCP/IP-related utility programs, such as ftp, rcp and rsh. Those were ported from BSD sockets to winsock (not a huge change) and bundled with NT.

Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license, not the GPL that Linux is released under. Whereas the GPL states that any software derived from GPL'ed software must also be released under the GPL, the BSD license basically says, "here's the source, you can do whatever you want, just give credit to the original author."

Eventually the new, from scratch TCP/IP stack was done and shipped with NT 3.5 (the second version, despite the number) in late 1994. The same stack was also included with Windows 95.

However, it looks like some of those Unix utilities were never rewritten. If you look at the executables, you can still see the copyright notice from the regents of the University of California (BSD is short for Berkeley Software Distrubution, Berkeley being a branch of the University of California, for some reason referred to as "Berkeley" on the East Coast and "California" on the West Coast...and "Berkeley" is one of those words that starts to look real funny if you stare at it too long - but I digress).

Keep in mind there is no reason to rewrite that code. If your ftp client works fine (no comments from the peanut gallery!) then why change it? Microsoft has other fish to fry. And the software was licensed perfectly legally, since the inclusion of the copyright notice satisfied the BSD license.

And implying that the TCP/IP stack uses BSD code is also false. As I said above there may be small vestiges of it in there, although I doubt it. Anyway the FreeBSD programmers who reported all this to the Wall Street Journal can't see the NT TCP/IP source either, so they can't have been referring to that.

It's about time you learned what you were talking about before preaching it. This is entirely a pattern for you, endless FUD and rhetoric and blatant lies about Microsoft...and then you let the thread drop and die or ban the poster.

[aneeshm]

Why not judge the two licenses by the results they had . The GPL proliferated , and brought hundreds of pieces of software within the free amibt ( its stated goal ) . BSD , having no purpose whatsoever , cannot be judged for success or failure . Note , however , that during the time of BSD , the industry got totally froagemnted , and the concept of UNIX would have died a slow death had not Linux revived it .

Let me put it in word you understand - think of the GPL as a huge IP-sharing agreement , wherein you agree to share your IP , as long as the other guy shares his . Simple , isn't it ?

[Asher]

Let me put it in word you understand - think of the GPL as a huge IP-sharing agreement , wherein you agree to share your IP , as long as the other guy shares his . Simple , isn't it ?

It is if you're a volunteer/hobby programmer, it's amazingly complicated and expensive if you're a corporation.

[Mr. Harley]

Which makes Aneeshm's point for him, doesn't it? Corporations are paticularly good at "sharing."

[Whaleboy]

Well, the version number is the same. However, I don't see the sort of thing you described.

Really? Try adding a device without using the terminal.

No. I suggest that the GPL is what allows FOSS to florish in the first place.

I don't think that the GPL has helped the BSD's to flourish since the GPL is (and I hate to use the word as Microsoft did but it seems most applicable) viral. GPL'd code will, for the most part, remain in an androgenous bubble and, with the exception of a few good products like Firefox, never see the mainstream.

For starters, if commercial outlets were to release source code, why would they do it under BSD? Otherwise you wouldn't be seeing things such as software patents, copyright suits, DMCA, EULA, etc., etc.

There is a difference between releasing the source for major products and contributing code back to the BSD's.

stole the TCP/IP from BSD

I'd be the first to agree with you that forced dissemination of IP and use of IP contrary to licence agreements is wrong. I do not consider the use of BSD code in line with the BSD licence to be "theft". It's good code, and because it's been used in commercial applications, millions of people have benefitted from it.

1. Don't use the term "intellectual property." There is nothing similar amongst trademarks, patents, and copyrights. Using such a term indicates you are either confused or trying to confuse.

What? If you are forced by the GPL licence to release the code when you release the product, it's hardly your IP in the same way that code under any other licence is your IP. YOu have the right to be recognised as the author, but you cannot terminate your own code. Releasing stuff under the BSD licence doesn't force open source on you, if you decide to release the code then you're not obliged to release all that originated from an OSS source.

2. Explain how the BSD license allows anybody to maintain control over his or her work.

You see a piece of code you like in one of the BSD's. You need it for your project. You tweak it a little, and include it in your product. You release your product, but not the source. The modifications you made remain under your control. Conversely, if you release the source code under the BSD licence, you're losing nothing that you wouldn't have lost under the GPL.

3. It appears you don't understand the GNU Public License.

I've been using Linux and BSD for years, and commenting on it frequently throughout, I dare say I understand it's implications a lot more than you.

Evidence for that can be found in the fact that I can spell it and you cannot .

4. BSD has been overtaken by Linux. It may not be stagnant, but not exactly thriving.

Really? MacOS has a bigger market share than Linux, Windows TCP/IP stack is used a lot more than Linux's. Linux may be great on servers but that's only because of the likes of Red Hat who make it easier to administrate than Free/Net/OpenBSD. We have already in this discussion struck the likes of Red Hat from serious consideration . The fairest comparison would be Slackware vs. FreeBSD. Slackware is a beautiful system, I'd like to see it with a NetBSD kernel. I would say that FreeBSD most likely has more users than Slackware

Now if can explain how the GPL is "political," seeing that it merely relaxes existing copyright laws, instead of giving up control entirely.

It seeks to perpetuate its own licence and the OSS movement regardless of what is best under the circumstances. Political. BSD's on the other hand say "hey, we got code, enjoy!".

Are you trying to talk about copyrights, patents, or trademarks?

That's an unnecessary distinction that GPL forces you to make.

The BSD community received nothing in return - not even an acknowledgement from MS, which is a direct violation of BSD terms.

People who release code under the BSD licence aren't seeking reward or recognition themselves, if they want the ego trip, there's the GPL.

Let me put it in word you understand - think of the GPL as a huge IP-sharing agreement , wherein you agree to share your IP , as long as the other guy shares his . Simple , isn't it ?

GPL works well for script kiddies who like hacking into their schools server, for serious corporations it's a liability. I would also say that the majority of GPL software sucks compared the software it was cloned from, OOo being a good example. Indeed the only two *really* good projects I can think of are Apache and Firefox.

Corporations are paticularly good at "sharing."

You say "sharing" like a primary school teacher trying to embue some sense of harmony on her bright eyed pupils. Thing is, you can't run a successful IT economy if anyone can read your source code, big corporations just wouldn't work. You might say that's a good thing, but 50 year old virgins with pony tails and enormous beards may wish to share their code, but not their money. Really good programmes just wouldn't get developed which would suck for everyone. Think about that the next time you fire up, Office, Unreal Tournament or Doom III.

[Mr. Harley]

There are numerous Open Source or inexpensive alternatives to MS Office (which owns it's position in part to a series of anti-competitive stunts pulled by MS that they correctly surmised they could get away with). The other two examples are first person shooters. While I may agree with portions of you post Whaleboy, that is NOT the set of examples I would use to make your point - they are not paticularly impressive.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Asher


It is if you're a volunteer/hobby programmer, it's amazingly complicated and expensive if you're a corporation.

It was targeted towards hobby programmers , so I'd say it has met its objective . It also has another unintended effect - if you're a startup , it is now easier to put your software under the GPL and charge for support , instead of following more conventional models .

It can also act as a method of saving your company if it is sinking - as is happening with Novell ( and , to an extent , Sun ) . If you GPL the software , you make it practically immortal - someone will change it to suit a new environment , and you have just got a new potential market .

[Wraith]

--"What, you didn't give it a whirl when it was released for free?"

Sure, but we're talking consumer desktops here. That is not their market at all.

--"If you really want useful things to happen to your code, you apply the BSD licence it so corporations can pour in investment."

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the different licenses in this thread.

Yes, corporations like BSD. They sure can pour investment in, but there's no guarantee anyone else will ever see any benefit from it. BSD is a good license for things like reference implementations (TCP/IP stack was a prime example), since anyone can take it and use it without restriction.

GPL is focused on something different. It's the way all coding used to be done, only now with legal strings attached. It means that no one can (legally) simply appropriate your code and make money off your work without giving something back. Namely, code improvements.

So they're focused on different things. Neither is going to be "right" for everything. There's rarely a one size fits all solution.

BTW, drop the "communistic" baloney. It's a good scare-word, but it isn't appropriate. No one's forcing you to use GPL code or the GPL license. Basically, it's still the author's code, so it's their rules, right? Perfectly capitalistic.

--"Intellectual property does not equal copyrights, patents, and trademarks...in fact, it is a superset."

Well, you're technically right. Intellectual property is copyrights, patents, trademarks... and trade secrets. That's all. However, the four categories have vastly different legal structures built around them. You don't take your patent lawsuits to a copyright lawyer. Lumping them all together and calling them "intellectual property" is usually a purposeful word-weaseling done by people who stand to profit if confusion between the four abounds.

--"it's amazingly complicated and expensive if you're a corporation."

All software development licensing deals are amazingly complicated and expensive. Same for patents.

--"YOu have the right to be recognised as the author, but you cannot terminate your own code."

Which is part of the appeal... to everyone but closed-source software companies. Reduces vendor-lock-in and forced upgrades. Neither is an economic "good" to anyone but the handful of closed-source software companies who can impose it.

--"That's an unnecessary distinction that GPL forces you to make."

Bull****. The distinctions are very important. And ones you'll have to make anyway; the BSD license doesn't cover patent or trademark terms.

--"Thing is, you can't run a successful IT economy if anyone can read your source code,"

Whyever not? That's how things got started. And I'd just love you to tell IBM they should stop making GPL contributions because it'll put them out of business.

Ack. This thread is making me sick. Look, most software development isn't even distributed. It's in-house stuff used by companies that, wow, don't make their money selling software. You know, like banks. What's important about software is what you can do with it.
Open source only hurts companies that have based their business on the low marginal costs of software reproduction. There really aren't that many of them. All the rest benefit from it.

It's just a shift in business practices. It happens. Some businesses become obsolete and either go away or are reduced in importance. Don't see many people going around delivering ice in the morning any more. Is that bad? No. Just having been in business at some point is no guarantee that you get to stick around forever.
Is GPL going to get rid of closed-source software? Nope, no time soon, probably not at all. Is it going to change the way some things are done? Already has.

--"Really good programmes just wouldn't get developed which would suck for everyone. Think about that the next time you fire up, Office, Unreal Tournament or Doom III."

What do any of those have to do with really good programs? ^_^

Wraith
"Most business plans fail. Obviously, success is not a realistic goal But the people who manage the most spectacular failures get promoted because of their experience."
-- Dogbert

[Mr. Harley]

Wraith - nice summation.