[Discuss] Home NAS redux

[markw at mohawksoft.com (Mark Woodward)]

On 01/02/2013 07:30 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
>> From: Mark Woodward [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com]
>>
>> (talking about CDDL)
>>
>> Well, I personally dislike the lack of freedom in the license and the
>> fact that I can't, according to the license, create a proper kernel
>> module. It has to be used as a FUSE system and that isn't acceptable.
I'll state up-front, that I am pro-GPL and I always have issue the GPL 
isn't free arguments. Back in the 1800s the anti-slavery movement was 
seen as an attack to the freedom of plantation owners to own slaves. The 
freedom to take from others is not a freedom.
> CDDL grants more freedom than GPL.  That is why it's incompatible with GPL.  Because CDDL explicitly allows code developers to distribute their code under other licenses, and keep some of it closed source if they want to.  GPL explicitly disallows that freedom, which is why CDDL is incompatible with GPL.
Yes, exactly, I write software I make it free to use and distribute, but 
I do not make it something you can capture as your own and deny any 
down-stream users of the same access to MY code that you got.
>
> If you are a free software developer, developing under GPL, you are putting restrictions on the way your code can be used by the recipient, and you are opening the door for a 3rd party to sue the recipient on your behalf, without any benefit to you.  Such is the case (for example) with the FSF suing linksys for incorporating busybox into their routers without notification to consumers.  The developers of busybox had nothing to do with the lawsuit, and did not benefit from the lawsuit.

You are thinking about it as if it is a two party transaction which is 
incorrect. It is an [n] party transaction chain where the originating 
party wishes to preserve the rights of 1+n chain of down stream recipients.

Nothing in the GPL forbids you from selling a product created from GPL 
source, have at it. If, however, you use someone's GPL free (as in 
freedom) software and modify it, then you must respect the original 
creators wishes and make your modifications GPL and publish them as 
well. If you don't like the terms, make a capital investment and write 
your own.

>
> If you read the terms of L-GPL, the FSF goes off on a rant about how you shouldn't grant such freedoms to the recipient, because the recipient can profit from your freely distributed code, without benefitting you.  They say you should use GPL instead, which doesn't grant the recipient freedom to profit from your free code.  They neglect to mention that if you use GPL, then the FSF can and will seek opportunity to profit from your code in the form of lawsuit against the recipient, if the recipient is found to be in violation of any of the GPL imposed restrictions.

You misunderstand the GPL. It is not a violation to sell a product based 
on the GPL code. It is a violation to distribute code you acquired via 
GPL as anything but GPL. The FSF is there to ensure that GPL is 
enforceable. To use your example, the creators of busybox should have 
gone after linksys themselves. Linksys should have published their 
changes to busybox. It wasn't that Linksys used busybox, it was that 
Linksys modified busybox and didn't publish their changes.
>
> I acknowledge and understand that there are pros and cons of both licenses, philosophically and materially.  I'm not saying one license is better than another, as a generalization; although in specific cases, each license can sometimes be better than the other.
I don't agree with this. The GPL is the source of a HUGE amount of free 
code to build on and learn from. It ensures that improvements get added 
back. Software is a capital investment in time and effort. I'm a 
capitalist and I take offense to a license that allows someone to take 
my intellectual property that I have intentionally shared and deny 
others the benefits I intend. That is theft.
>
> I am saying the statement representing CDDL as a "lack of freedom" and bias in favor of GPL on these grounds, is factually incorrect.
In the first transaction where I publish and you wish to use, there are 
restrictions on you, this is true. However, my restrictions on you 
preserve the freedoms of my code to those to whom you distribute. I 
hardly call the principal that you have the "freedom" to deny others the 
"freedom" you enjoy, a "freedom." If you don't like it, then make your 
own capital investment and write your own software.

The GPL is more free than other licenses because it keeps you from 
denying the freedom that allows you to succeed from others. The freedom 
to deny freedom is not a freedom.

>