On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 7:00 AM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Apparently Facebook used a modified OpenSSL version that was accidentally not vulnerable. Had OpenSSL been licensed under a copyleft license, maybe we wouldn't have Heartbleed at all.
No. GPL does not require redistribution of mods used privately, only if redistribution occurs are such mods required to be redistributed. Facebook chose not to redistribute, therefore GPL would have made no difference because it would not trigger.
makes it easier to get all the patches/fixes/etc other people made
No, not unless redistribution triggers. All these giant companies modifying GPL code to their internal purposes, not so many @bigcorp.com's present on the mailing lists.
In the digital world selling *products* (think: Windows licenses) simply does not work
Yeah, apparently not... https://www.google.com/finance/related?q=MSFT https://www.google.com/finance/related?q=FOX Restrictions on piracy are what does not work. Neither GPL or any other license apply in that realm.
The answer here is to move towards selling *services*
No, people are free to choose their careers.
[GPL] makes it *harder* for large corporations to close that work and out-sell it
Both GPL and BSD can dual license and make millions as their own corporations.
So why exactly does anybody here feel the need to retain the right to close their [own software]
People are free to choose that for their own software. It's "all rights reserved", an inalienable moral right. Berne says so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/06/msg00252.html
(or [close] anybody else's, for that matter) software?
No, that is not what happens with BSD. You cannot close the authors own rights, or replace their license with your own, it's "all rights reserved". You can only close your copy of the BSD work the author gave you. http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2009/2/12/are-you-sure-you-want-to-use-gpl/ Tomorrow, Linus/Stallman could, via Berne, slap a Microsoft style license on all their own work contributions they ever subsequently released to Linux/GNU under the GPL and seed their own companies with it and be under no obligation to ever let you see it or any future mods they make to it. You, having already received an earlier GPL copy, can keep on with that. "copyleft" GPL is, in fact, a restriction of freedom. "permissive" BSD is, in fact, a granting of freedom. There can be no argument there. NetBSD says... "We don't think it's right to require people who add to our work and want to distribute the results (for profit or otherwise) to give away the source to their additions; they made the additions, and they should be free to do with them as they wish." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html http://www.netbsd.org/about/redistribution.html#why-berkeley https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/committers-guide/article.html#pref-l... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois/NCSA_Open_Source_License The BSD is about freedom. If someone copies BSD work and closes it, griping happens, yet the BSD community doesn't really care because they granted and expected that beforehand, and they keep on developing openly. That honoring and/or supporting of free choice is their ethos. Turns out, after getting out from under the AT&T issues, and doing lots of cleanroom work (eg: LLVM/CLANG, adoption of BSD utils over GPL), and enforcing what work they will accept, they're getting that returned to them more and more and won't be disappearing anytime soon... https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/ http://www.netbsd.org/foundation/
economical benefits
BSD folks also enjoy making BSD products and working for BSD companies that GPL folks like to falsely claim "stole" BSD licensed software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://www.freebsd.org/commercial/commercial.html http://www.netbsd.org/gallery/products.html http://www.openbsd.org/products.html Not being able to sell software because it's been forced open largely wipes out an entire economic sector.
I see [...] benefits from [GPL ...]
... so do perhaps communists/communals and say religious believers. In a way, GPL folks could be seen as a bit afraid, lacking independance or confidence, so as action in commons, (or even if not seen that way but instead only on a mission to push and test new social paradigm). they slap on the GPL to chain others to their belief under threat. That doesn't seem very free.
This: ["MUH FREEDUMS" ...]
BSD is about honoring freedom, not about ramming freedom down your throat under threat of suit.
... is the boiled down distinction between BSD and GPL. GPL is pushing something on you once you touch it, BSD lets you choose freely as suits you best, including from among the social paradigm GPL is pushing. Laws do not prevent people from doing bad things, neither do people need licensed to do good things.