OT - Closing Off An Open-Source Product

[Chris Watson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> A code is always tainted with its license. It's impossible to say
> what one can do with a code without considering its license.
>
> A BSDL licensed code is not totally free: it cannot be linked with
> GPL code.

How is that not free? Because I dont let you GPL infect my code? How does
the place restrictions on the code? What use am I keeping you from using
my code for? Binary only distros? nope. Source only distros? nope. Either
one? nope. What restrictions are in place on the code that prevent you
from using the *code* anyway you chose? READ NONE. If you want to argue
that it isn't free because I refuse to let you infest my code with that
virus, the GPL license yes I will completely agree to that. It's my code,
my copyright, my license terms. And *you* are not allowed to change those.
But the code is still *completely free* in any sense of the word. You can
use it for *any* purpose you so choose without restrictions. The license
just makes it clear you cant alter the license. But since it is *my
license and my code* you obviously realize you have no right to.

> Similarly as GPL is enforcing that the code will be free. The
> difference is that GPL is talking about the source, and you are
> talking about either source or binary.

The GPL doesnt ensure squat about freedom. Ive said this 4 times now.
If you release a piece of code into the public. It is forever free.
period. It doesnt magically get up and dissapear. It isnt swept into some
big black hole of free code. So that point is a red herring. The GPL is a
license with an agenda to take away freedom, not enforce it. Nothing you
can say can change that fact. It would be fine for the GPL to say:
This code is under the GPL. This code is to remain under the GPL and no
other restrictions, or terms may be used on *this* code.

But no, this is not what the GPL does. It inflicts the GPL on OTHER
peoples code. Simply for being used. There is nothing free about that. It
has an agenda to destroy the works of others to fall under the term's of
the GPL. Clause 2 clearly shows this. It doesnt try and protect GPL code.
It tries to enslave the *entire* code base of other work as a GPL work,
simply for using GPL code. It isnt protecting *jack squat*. It is simply
trying to use force to destory IP, kill commercial software, and nuke software
development back into the stoneage.

> > So basically your back to BSDL vs GPL which is truly free? The BSDL doesnt
> > put restrictions on code use, the GPL does.
>
> GPL puts restrictions: it forbids putting restriction about
> availability of the source.

It also puts the restriction I have to contaminate my entire code base
under the GPL if I want to use you're code.

> BSDL also puts restrictions: it forbids putting restrictions which
> would forbid putting restrictions about availability of the source.

What in the he** are you talking about??? Where does the BSD license say:

"we forbid you putting restrictions on this code" ???????????
You are seeing things that are not there. Switch medications.
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...
If you are not interested in people using you're code, fine. DONT RELEASE
IT! But stop screaming its free software when you refuse to let people use
it however they see fit. Thats just insane.

> Disallowing putting a restriction is always a restriction itself!

That is abosolute nonsense. I dare you to show me where in the BSDL it
says you cannot place further restrictions on it? Prove it. I dare you.

> In some sense BSDL gives more freedom: it forbids putting a
> restriction. In the same sense GPL gives more freedom: it forbids
> putting a restriction.

Not in *some* sense in all senses it *is free*. You're boat is sinking
you have to do better then that if you want to survive. You're argument
isnt even based in reality.

> In another sense BSDL takes away freedom: it introduces a restriction
> (which forbids putting other restrictions). Same for GPL: it introduces
> a restriction (which forbids putting other restrictions).

Earth to wherever you are. Prove to me where the BSDL restricts anything.
Just one example in the license that restricts use in any way shape or
form. The GPL also taints other works. But you keep failing to mention
that.

> I could introduce SuperGPL which is related to BSDL as BSDL is
> related to GPL. It would say that you cannot put restrictions which
> would disallow putting restrictions which would ensure that the code
> remains free. It's incompatible with BSDL but compatible with GPL.
> Of course you could respond with SuperBSDL etc.
>
> You can't say where in this infinite sequence lives most freedom,
> because freedom is not monotonic. Giving more freedom means that other
> people are allowed to take away more freedom. OTOH ensuring that other
> people can't take away freedom is taking away some freedom yourself.

Given that webster defines Freedom as:

Freedom \Free"dom\ (fr[=e]"d[u^]m), n. [AS. fre['o]d[=o]m;
     fre['o]free + -dom. See {Free}, and {-dom}.]
     1. The state of being free; exemption from the power and
        control of another; liberty; independence.

The GPL is completely anti-freedom. It puts me under the control of the
GPL/FSF, it does not give me the liberty to use my code as I see fit, it
takes away my independence. Strike 1, 2 and 3. You're out.

> Stating what restrictions other people can put is in a contravariant
> position. The more freedom you want to ensure, the more you have to
> restrict, and vice versa.

More nonsensical babble.

> There is no point of infinite freedom. Well, in some sense it's the
> beginning of the sequence: public domain code. But it doesn't disallow
> other people from introducing restrictions on the availability of the
> source, because it doesn't disallow anything - this is what "totally
> free" means. You can disallow that, and you have GPL. You don't like
> it, so you can disallow putting that restriction, and you have BSDL.
> I don't like that, so I can disallow putting that restriction, and
> we have SuperGPL. Et caetera.

You're trying to somehow show that the GPL's violation of freedom is in
anyway related to BSDL. Anyone who read's the two licenses will no what a
fraud you're statements are.

> You replaced evil GPL restrictions with evil BSDL restrictions.

No I did not. I do not *taint other peopls code to fall under my license*,
I *do not force people to distribute source code*. The GPL does. The BSDL
does not. You need to read both licenses again. Because its clear you have
not done so.

=============================================================================
- -Chris Watson         (316) 326-3862 | FreeBSD Consultant, FreeBSD Geek
Work:              scanner at jurai.net | Open Systems Inc., Wellington, Kansas
Home:  scanner at deceptively.shady.org | http://open-systems.net
=============================================================================
WINDOWS: "Where do you want to go today?"
LINUX: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
BSD: "Are you guys coming or what?"
=============================================================================
irc.openprojects.net #FreeBSD -Join the revolution!
ICQ: 20016186
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6

iD8DBQE611RRoTcdKVapx58RAqbqAJ91QTXFGVYuHZvClO1R/xQYhhTHsQCgiwHb
rEmCHIMo7/yStgP8GGF/k1k=
=CVFK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----