Good ol' BSD vs. GPL (was: Re: TrueCrypt, GostCrypt, *Crypt - status?)

[grarpamp]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 7:00 AM, rysiek <rysiek at 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-license
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.