Good ol' BSD vs. GPL
odinn.cyberguerrilla at riseup.net
Mon Jan 5 23:29:05 PST 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jesse B. Crawford:
> On 2015-01-05 12:29, odinn wrote:
>> 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)
> This isn't unheard of, the main example would be SQLite which is
> completely public domain to great success.
> Although it depends on jurisdiction,
Here, then. Why would it necessarily depend on jurisdiction? Isn't
the jurisdiction primarily something that really is something that one
imagines and then imposes? Or is the imagination and imposition
something that occurs simultaneously? Past, present, future,
"necessarily" chosen perceptions in order to prevent one's mind from
popping before the realization that it is not the spoon that bends, it
is you. :-) In any event, are our notions of "jurisdiction"
regardless of how they are implemented or put into practice in what we
consider to be "real world," practical and reasonable, or are they
merely part of a mental prison which we routinely impose upon
Too many words, though.
The Gateless Gate (1228) by Mumon, translated by Nyogen
Koan number 29 out of 49 in this work (published 1228, translated 1934)
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: "The flag is moving."
The other said: "The wind is moving."
The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He told them: "Not the
wind, not the flag; mind is moving."
Mumon’s comment: The sixth patriarch said: "The wind is not
moving, the flag is not moving. Mind is moving." What did he mean? If
you understand this intimately, you will see the two monks there
trying to buy iron and gaining gold. The sixth patriarch could not
bear to see those two dull heads, so he made such a bargain.
Wind, flag, mind moves,
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong.
> they explain this licensing arrangement as "Anyone is free to copy,
> modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original
> SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary,
> for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means,"
> which sounds about as free as it can get to me.
> I had a discussion with RMS about this not that long ago. In fact,
> the discussion began with the BSD project, which he seems to view
> primarily as an attempt to undermine the work of the FSF (an
> opinion that he expresses in some of his public talks as well).
> Anyway, I think it is apparent from talking to RMS that he feels
> that it is a goal of GPL to prevent "user-subjugating" software
> vendors ever obtaining any commercial advantage from GPL-licensed
> code. The theory of it is a bit like not selling ammunition to KKK
> members or something, RMS does not want to allow his enemies to use
> the tools he creates.
> Of course I don't agree with him in this regard, but that's because
> I don't feel that closed-source software is intrinsically evil.
> From RMS's perspective, that closed-source software is
> fundamentally a violation of the rights of the user, it makes a
> great deal of sense.
> I think that even FSF advocates increasingly don't align fully
> with RMS on this issue, but his ideas have certainly influenced the
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the cypherpunks