On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 at 15.01.14 -0600, Mike Miller wrote: > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Sidney Cammeresi wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 at 09.13.48 -0600, Mike Miller wrote: > > > 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. > > > > If you want to use the GPL, go right ahead, but please don't call > > GPLed software `free.' It is far from `free as in free speech' because > > there are a large number of uses which the GPL does not allow. > > Calling the GPL `free' in light of this is simply an attempt to > > confuse the issue. > > That is a very original and peculiar interpretation, not in keeping > with anything I have read in the past. Calling it "free" is not an > attempt to confuse anything - it was called "free" by Stallman from > the beginning and for good reason. The BSD license is less free than > the GPL because the BSD-licensed code can be captured and imprisoned > in binary files where you are not allowed to access it. The GPL code > remains free. Again, this is a confusion. BSD code always remains free even if someone makes their own closed-source fork. Sun can take OpenSSH and release a binary version, but that doesn't affect my ability to download the source code from openssh.com. OpenSSH will always remain free irrespective of what Sun or anyone else does. The only thing I can't get are Sun's changes because they are owned by Sun. If getting other people and companies to work for you for free is your goal though, then you will probably want to follow the example of the RIAA/DRM lobby and wrap your code in a restrictive license like the GPL. This way, people who want to use your software will be required to use it only in the ways you permit. -- Sidney CAMMERESI http://www.cheesecake.org/sac/