On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, rwh wrote: > I'm afraid that I don't accept that GPL is socially optimal to BSD. If > the GPL license inhibits the use of the code I'd rather use BSD, and if > someone grabs my code and finds a way to make a buck off it, more power > to them. I think "more power to them" is a good way of putting it. If we produce code that can be used within proprietary, binaries-only software, then we are aiding the promoters of the proprietary model -- empowering them -- and this is not good for the FOSS movement. The GPL is better for FOSS than is the BSD license because of this. I have a problem with the argument (that I have seen recently, probably not from rwh) that BSD license is good because Microsoft can use it to produce better programs. By that line of thought, it is also good to simply write the code for Microsoft and give it to them for free. In doing so you are supposedly "helping people" -- all the people who use the Microsoft product with your code in it. Therefore, by that logic, you could also "help people" by putting an end to the FOSS movement and licensing all future would-have-been FOSS code to Microsoft exclusively. I want to support the free software movement because I see it changing the software world massively for the better. The BSD license just does not help to propel that movement forward as well as the GPL does. > The only time I get irked is when someone takes someone else's free > code, uses it in a proprietary manner, and then attempts to claim > ownership of the original concept. It's better if they give credit, but how much better? Suppose this is how the credit reads 5 years from now: "We want to thank John Doe for his contributions to the code base for Microsoft Word. Without his help we surely would not have been able to compete well with the newest version of Open Office. As a result of Mr. Doe's contributions, we have been able to retain millions of customers that we would otherwise have lost and these millions of sales have enabled us to maintain powerful legal and marketing departments, to promote our software and to fend off anti-trust suits. Thanks, John Doe, for everything!" >> Every published paper has a copyright held by the publisher, but I >> don't think that is relevant. The thing you might not be getting is >> the difference between using code to accomplish something versus using >> code as part of another program. It is fine to use GPL code to, say, >> design a car and then sell the car and give no credit whatsoever to the >> developer of the GPL code. It is not fine to use GPL code within a >> program that you then distribute under a different license. So people >> might use some of my papers to discover genes that affect diabetes of >> blood pressure or whatever, and they owe me nothing (but they might >> cite my papers). On the other hand, they are not free to use a >> paragraph from my paper inside of their paper (not without quotation >> marks and correct attribution). > > I guess I don't distinguish between code and words - they're both means > of conveying IP. I don't know what you mean. Did you read my paragraph above -- is that your response to it? I am also not distinguishing between code and words because I think they are legally the same thing. > Suppose you identify a genetic sequence that serves to identify > diabetics who are at particular risk from the effects of high blood > pressure. Unless you are able to protect that IP through a patent, there > is nothing to prevent me from using that information to market a test > for that sequence. > > The philosophy behind GPL would allow you to require that anyone making > use of your discovery would need to reveal the associated IP that they > merged with your information. There would be nothing to stop you from > getting a patent and imposing those conditions on anyone using your > discovery (the Biological Open Source movement is one example, > http://www.bios.net/daisy/bios/home.html) > > I guess the question is would you publish (like BSD) or go BiOS (like > GPL)? I guess I'm not really understanding you. GPL is copyright, not patent. I think you are mixing the two ideas. It is quite alright for corporations, say, to use GPL code to develop things that are then copyrighted or patented and no credit is given to the GPL developer, but they are not allowed to use the code itself within their product. > But my impression is that a good chunk of the OS is available from > Apple, but the code for the interface isn't. I thought that Darwin was > the underlying operating system with Cocoa sitting on top of that. > > http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ Good to know. Maybe the OS X stuff that isn't available is all new code written by Apple. Mike