Good ol' BSD vs. GPL

[odinn]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I read this and I just get more confused. One I feel like this is
topic drift (but don't worry about that, I'm glad for a little drift
here) and two... what about bitcoin which is.... MIT right?  I don't
mean to drift it further... but I feel like this gets to be a circular
thing.  M. Gogulski had an argument (not sure if on this list but
maybe it was on Unsystem) sometime I think early last year in which he
had some arguments I hadn't considered for different types of
unlicensing approaches.  Which again, I just hadn't considered before
he had elaborated on it at length.  In comparison the whole thing I
found at the time a bit befuddling.

This led me to ask if maybe there was just a way to release it into
domain (public domain) without the whole licensing system and
multitude of restrictions and competing licensing restrictions
(including Unlicense) coming into play, depending on the project /
projects being considered.  (Again I think we are twirling in circles
here)

But part of this in the final analysis should be what software
projects have succeeded and really circled the globe (and resisted
various kinds of intrusions/attacks) regardless of what labels we have
slapped on them?

Well, they have been:

Non-corporate, generally non-organizational also
open source
Consider some of the conclusions from both 30c3 and 31c3

I'm repeating the obvious now so I'll shut up

grarpamp:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> wrote:
>> Both restore rights that copyright otherwise restricts.
> 
> No. Copyright exists automatically in default state of "all rights 
> reserved". Any "restoration" you may wish or take for yourself 
> within that is an abuse of the author's rights as you have none.
> Any rights to the author's work you may have are granted to you as
> the author chooses. Subject to various limited notions... 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_safety_valves 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
> 
>> The GPL ensures that you are free to use the software even if
>> you receive it from a third party. BSD doesn't do that.
> 
> Yes it does. The author can slap BSD or GPL on it, give it to
> Alice who gives it to Bob who gives it Carl who gives it to you
> which you then "use". There's no difference between the two there.
> 
>> Therefore BSD "grants" less freedom than the GPL.
> 
> No it doesn't. This has already been explained. GPL people often 
> confuse freedom vs force(d open source redistribution), and
> permissive vs restrictive. Don't get confused.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_treaties
>
> 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_copyright
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright Yarr!
> 

- -- 
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUqvRGAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CQ7oIAJl6FTr0D9nKKoh4mDOofQtb
t4W25ma/aNb0QSMp51Xc18S5EoqCsnHAShkOr4ebzssnNYXYr2M746DjmflwnpXZ
xF9OtlSR6CT/17AOFrEXUwgEsDFngdJzumv8Fi09xbJ09PwNVa6x3tZ4jMmv8tPx
x57K7fN6VbceMimRQRA24g19z9I8mBF/yW1bdh5+3STmdnR0ASrjnzgywZLoF9Q4
X8tj6E9oZ0cooDRhzDfGwo3lCirYazmHwjK6Y5qHwcRCkyOy2eyDLumKDbeQNEBS
5e64G/6AQfCA6HG1q/2/qpcaf6X8OYVFsX70DQws1q+S5W6rVRaD5K/3MkyeOEU=
=px75
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----