Originally Posted by nht
You don't need to force people to contribute. Folks contribute back to BSD and Apache based projects all the time. It's also not freeloading if the intent is for the code to be freely
So they do.
But imagine that Apple or anyone else took KHTML, made webkit, then no longer gave back their code since they had no legal obligation to do so since it was BSD? Why do you think Microsoft loves BSD's license and hates the GPL? While they no longer rely on it, they did use the network stack from BSD for awhile. What did they give back? The obligatory copyright hidden in the vast files of the OS.
Maybe, just maybe, there are cases that people want their software to be protected from that happening.
And GPL hasn't kept Ubuntu from "freeloading" off the other distros. At least based on the grouching within some parts of the community.
Some people complain about Ubuntu's lack of contributions to the software being distributed, as in they don't perhaps like Novell, make openoffice better, but that doesn't mean they take GPL software, improve on it and not disclose the source. That's leaving them open to a lawsuit.
The fact is that GPL is viral while LGPL is not (as much). That's the key difference between strong and weak copyleft.
Not that I didn't know that nor was arguing about that, so your point?
Big difference. GPL prohibits the advert clause. 4-clause BSD (aka original BSD) is also not compatible with GPL for the same reasons. This is why GPL and BSD are incompatible and this is why combining OpenSSL with GPL code requires hoop jumping.
It's done as already pointed out to make it easy to comply with the license in most cases
, but to make it easier the modified BSD license exists. I know it is a very small nit, but in the world of making sure you don't allow yourself to get sued based on some stupid technicality, it has to be done.
Same thing in my line of work; I have to warn people of the smallest of things. It sounds alarmist, and most cases it sounds like I'm just trying to get them to spend hundreds of dollars in repairs. But if later down the road it does happen, I'm legally responsible. For example, I didn't tell someone to use a special Carrier filter size for their unit. Three months later it caused their evaporator coil to clog 100%. Guess who didn't pay for the job of removing it to be cleaned?
Evidently you didn't even read the FSF GPL compatibility list in it's entirety. They didn't write that as a joke you know. It's not all true but who wants to risk getting sued by SFLC to make a point. The odds are low it'll happen since they wont want sue because they have a serious risk losing but still.
I think I already addressed that on the next post about Apple and VLC. And the above.
Linus could simply have used the BSD userland had it not been under that USL vs BSDi cloud. Of course, without that cloud there might never been linux at all (Linus has said he likely would have just used 386bsd) and the FSF would have been stuck with HURD and no working system.
RMS needed Linus and Linux to further his cause a hell of a lot more than Linus needed gnu stuff with the exception of gcc.
If BSD was ready at the time Linus and his kernel would have been completely unnecessary. However, a kernel isn't much of anything without the rest of what comprises an OS, and GNU's goal was to do just that - a complete operating system.
Linus doesn't care about RMS's ethical reasons for why software should be free, and neither do most people. Hence the OSI and its model of making software. And apple users only care about whether the stuff works or not.
Because code taken from a BSD project and enhanced ends up as GPL code assuming the change is significant enough to be its own work. You can't use GPL code in a BSD or Apache project without turning your project into a GPL project.
No you can't. But you make it sound like that's a big loss. The additional restriction you have is you or others can't take the resulting program and make it closed source.
If you want to give 100% and simple want a simple one line of recognition that you made something, sure, use BSD. Vorbis has nothing to gain with the GPL, and even RMS told them to make it BSD.
Hence GPL is viral.
Right. You say "viral", I say it keeps people from freeloading and not contributing back. No one is forcing you to use it.
FFMPEG is LGPL. Handbrake, x264 and VLC are GPL. Your example is worthless since all 4 projects are GPL or LGPL.
The point I made which you of course missed is that Handbrake didn't make their own h.264 library to encode video, but used x264 from the video lan project, thus contributing a piece of useful software using perhaps the best h.264 library out there. What would Handbrake be without x264, or FFMPEG or anything else they use? Likewise, who wants to use x264 without a GUI?
Given I've shown I actually understand FOSS licensing and you don't that's a very weak retort. You don't even know the difference between GPL and LGPL and that's a pretty dismal level of understanding even for a junior FSF zealot.
Actually I do. You just setup a strawman argument instead.
Seems like you only learned one word in the FSF newspeak dictionary (freeloading). Can you at least recite the FSF four freedoms? Care to quote Ghandi like Eben Morgan does? The funny thing is that RMS isn't like Ghandi as much as he's like L. Ron Hubbard
Ooooh, now it's ad hominem.
Perhaps you can ridicule those who raise the ethical reasons of why VLC chose to remove itself from the app store, but I admire those who rather stand up for what they believe in and not compromise their ideals just to be "popular."