From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S264678AbSJTX7Q>; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:59:16 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S264682AbSJTX7Q>; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:59:16 -0400
Received: from w032.z064001165.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net ([64.1.165.32]:26692 "EHLO
	nakedeye.aparity.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S264678AbSJTX7P>; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 19:59:15 -0400
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Matt D. Robinson" <yakker@aparity.com>
To: Jon Portnoy <portnoy@tellink.net>
cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210201309120.22852-100000@cerberus.localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210201648510.13602-100000@nakedeye.aparity.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:
|>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
|>> This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
|>> to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
|>> often make.  It is a word game intended to render the concept of
|>> freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more.  Once
|>> people see through this, it loses its effect.

It seems like people have lost their marbles on this issue.

Using the BSD license gives the receiver certain freedoms.  I'm all
for that -- if someone takes my BSD licensed code and never releases
modifications back to me (or anyone else), that's okay.  I chose
that license because that's what I intended and should even expect
to happen.

Using the GNU GPL means imposing your idea of freedom on others,
which in some cases I'm all for.  Either it's required of me (because
I've modified GPL code and released it) or I think that people
will benefit from being able to use it and expand upon it openly.
There's plenty of cases where that's a good thing to do.

Using a proprietary license means protecting interests, regardless
of freedoms for anything.  That's okay as well -- some people like
to earn a paycheck and/or preserve their investments.  When it
comes down to putting food on your family's table, or putting a
roof over their heads, in those cases it's the right thing to do.
That applies to the mom and pop development companies all the way
up to a company the size of Microsoft.  Sometimes it's a good thing
to be paid for you and your company's efforts.

I wish more people would stop and think about why they write code
in the first place.  If you write code to make a living, or write
code to help others (like a volunteer might do), or if you write
code just because you feel like it, each may need a different
license.  Nobody's wrong to use BSD, GNU GPL, or any other license.
Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
licensing choice.

Back to writing code (which I'm "free" to do) ... :)

--Matt