[ale] Are our Ethernet drivers in danger?

[Joseph A. Knapka]

Byron A Jeff wrote:
> 
> >
> > on 7/3/01 11:32 PM, Darin Lang at darin at doolang.com wrote:
> >
> > > The GPL is an extremely restrictive license
> >
> > It is the most unrestrictive license there is. And it's existence is what
> > has made GNU-Linux possible. You would not be in this group without it.
> 
> Uh Oh! I can smell the flames!
> 
> Let me put in my three cents:
> 
> 1) The GPL is restrictive. It prevents the conversion of GPL code into
> proprietary code. It even prevents the bundling of GPL code with proprietary
> code. It forces the redistribution of the source code of modifications of
> original GPL code.  It's restrictive and we should all be glad that it is. It
> kills the embrace and extend tactic of privitation because no GPL code that
> is distributed can be private. It must be released and anyone can redistribute
> and modify the results. In terms maintaining the openness of the code and
> the freeness (in cost, modifiability, and redistribution) it is the most
> free license for the code. But it places significant restrictions on modifiers
> and distributors of the code. It forces all distributed code, and all of its
> derivatives. be available in source form to any and every user of that code
> 
> 2) The BSD license is the most permissive. It can be co-opted, made proprietary,
> allow for embrace and extend without further contribution of its users,
> modifiers, and distributors. It no longer even requires a recognition of the
> author. In short code can fall into a propritary black hole never to be seen
> again. In terms of usability for modifiers and distributors it is the most
> free license. But in terms of potential cost to users in terms of source
> code access to extensions for modification, it's the weakest license.

Adding fuel to the fire...

It seems to me that BSD-like licenses are superior to GPL-like
licenses, because they encourage the highest-quality code
available to actually be used, regardless of the context, and
without any fear of legal consequences.

Your point about losing code enhancements made by closed-source
developers is certainly valid, but let's say you have a BSD-
licensed piece of code, and some proprietary closed-source
extension. There are, it seems to me, just two possibilities:

(1) the extension doesn't add any significant functionality
to the product, in which case, who cares?

(2) the extension is so amazingly useful that, weeks later,
the same functionality appears in an Open Sourced fork of
the same code. The Open Source fork, being open, improves
much more rapidly in quality and functionality than the
closed source. So again, who cares about the closed-
source fork?

The only thing I can see that would prevent this is if
the closed-forkers are so astonishingly brilliant that
they come up with code whose functionality *millions and
millions* of really smart people can't figure out how
to reproduce, in which case, more power to 'em.
Seems unlikely :-)

Of course, a "credit where due" clause would be nice.
But I thought the BSD license actually does require
copyright and authorship notices to remain intact.

-- Joe Knapka
"You know how many remote castles there are along the gorges? You
 can't MOVE for remote castles!" -- Lu Tze re. Uberwald
// Linux MM Documentation in progress:
// http://home.earthlink.net/~jknapka/linux-mm/vmoutline.html
* Evolution is an "unproven theory" in the same sense that gravity is. *
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.