From: opus@cheshire.oxy.edu (David Giller) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 22:34:24 GMT
nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) wrote:
>First of all, the BSD license and the Artistic License are two different
>things.
This is very true.
>Secondly, my disagreement is purely philisophical. When a commercial
>company uses the product chances are good that they will send in fixes
>to real bugs.
Uh huh. Tell me then (and this isn't a challenge to this statement,
but a genuine question) why, with the number of companies who
commercialized BSD, not a single one of them sent back code to fix,
say, the serial drivers which were notoriously buggy for so long?
Granted this may have been a 386-specific thing, but there were
companies who had bsd for the 386.
>They don't want to fix the bug every time a new release is
>made.
Neither do they want to fix it for all their competitors.
>Now, they will not send in enhancements, but that's to be expected.
How is a bug fix other than an enhancement?
>But a very vocal minority of GNU folks fix the code, never send the
>fixes into the code maintainers, and then shout to the world that the
>'new-improved' SNARFU library is available via such and such a server.
Well, they worked on the code, didn't they? If you spent time on some
code and released it, wouldn't YOU call it improved? Do you expect
them to call it 'the new and slightly different SNARFU'?
>They are snobbish when asked why they never even bothered to send in the
>fixes, and they claim to be 'better' than the original authors for
>fixing the code and making their fixes GPL.
Snobbish? Never even bothered? Where, in your lisence, does it say
that ANYONE has to send in fixes? Do you call up IBM and ask them why
they never bothered to send in their bug fixes? Seems to me that the
whole point of your lisence is that no one is required to even
acknowledge your presence.
>Give me a break. Someone else did all the work, and they are trying to
>steal the credit. At least commercial companies don't claim to be
>morally superior and 'better' by taking the code.
You yourself are claiming to be morally superior, you hypocrite.
Commercial companies don't care, as long as they make money.
>THAT, in a nutshell is my problem with some of the GNU folks. This is
>not something that all of the GNU folks do, but unfortunately the most
>vocal seem to be that way.
So it's personal.
>Me, if I thought something I was writing FROM SCRATCH had enough
>intrinsic value that I wanted to donate it to the world, I may consider
>using the GPL. But, taking someone else's code, fixing it, and not
>giving the fixes back to the author is IMHO, beyond reproach.
Just what do you think commercial companies do? Leave the bugs in?
Do you think that all companies who use your code send in fixes, or
even that there isn't a company out there that decides to send you
diddly squat? Get real.
>Common
>decency and what the GNU project supposedly stands for would say for a
>person to at least 'further' the development of the code.
They ARE furthering the development of the code, it is merely being
done under a lisence which will keep commercial companies from making
their own proprietary improvements on it without kicking the changes
back.
>Labeling it any other way is just trying to cover up a wrong with
>another wrong.
It seems pretty obvious to me that you have only two bases for your
argument.
1. You are emotionally irked that someone else wants to use a lisence
that you don't like.
2. You are intellectually irked that someone would fix the code, make
the fixes AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, and yet, prohibit you from giving
them to a commercial company to sell for profit. Despite the fact
that you continually parade around on your high horse proclaiming how
morally superior YOU are for allowing ANYONE to do ANYTHING they want
with YOUR code.
Now, there's nothing wrong with the lisence you are supporting. But
your attacks on the GPL are totally unsupported and completely out of
line. The GPL is merely a different way of doing things. I
personally have released small amounts of code under EACH of the GPL
and a true public-domain lisence. For each situation, I do what I
thought was appropriate. Most of my code is proprietary.
If it so bothers you that the GPL does precisely what you explicitly
give them permission to do, then explicitly forbid them from using any
of your future work. You won't be able to talk about how totally free
your code is anymore, but at least you won't be a hypocrite.
-Dave
PS: Oh, and make sure you only do this to your OWN code, because it
-- David Giller, Box 134 | Q: How many Oregonians does it take to screw in a light Occidental College | bulb? A: Three. One to replace the bulb, and two to 1600 Campus Road | fend off all the Californians trying to share the Los Angeles, CA 90041 | experience. -------------------------------opus@oxy.edu