none <byron@upstairs> espoused:
> In article <1btzlsgwjtenq$.1w926tpb4wny1$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:20:21 -0600, none wrote:
>>
>>> In article <10128867.8tItTksYdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>GPL and BSD : impact
>>>>
>>>>,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| Corporations like Microsoft love the BSD-style licenses. Case in point is the
>>>>| Microsoft NT TCP/IP stack, which is basically a binary copy of the BSD TCP/IP
>>>>| stack. With a BSD-Style license, while code can not be stolen, rights of
>>>>| ownership cannot be enforced either.
>>>>|
>>>>http://zerias.blogspot.com/2008/01/gpl-and-bsd-impact.html
>>>
>>> The blog author did make one mistake. He has the following as a GPL
>>> rule:
>>>
>>> -------------------------
>>> #4: Everybody who modifies the source code must submit the changes back
>>> to the original author
>>> -------------------------
>>>
>>> That's not correct. Modifiers of GPL software are obligated to
>>> distribute modifications downstream, not upstream. If I modify someone's
>>> code then I have to give the source of the modification to anyone I give
>>> the software to. That may or may not include the original author.
>>>
>>> In practice modifications are a public distribution. But there's nothing
>>> in the GPL that requires the distribution be public.
>>>
>>> BAJ
>>
>>It's pretty pathetic when you Linux freaks can't even get your stories
>>straight.
>
> The original blog author didn't proport to be a Linux user. They were
> only discussion Open Source licenses.
>
>>The GPL is a clusterfsck.
>
> The GPL is what it is. Stallman and the FSF want maximum
> usage/modification/distribution freedom of software for end users. Most
> of Linux truthfully is a mix of code licensed with either modified GPL
> licenses are Open Source licenses with somewhat less restrictions than
> the GPL.
>
Careful with your spin, Sir! The GPL has elements which serve to ensure
maximum freedom, therefore *minimum* restrictions. Some licences which
appear to be more "permissive" typically show permissiveness in methods
for taking code without giving back, for locking-down, for producing
binary-only distributions and so on, basically, code with far greater
restrictions than GPLed code.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
