Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] Home NAS redux

The argument here is based on the unstated assumption that freedom is only
for developers, and "users" are merely a resource to be exploited.

The GPL argues that users and developers are *not* disjoint sets; rather,
developers are a *subset* of users, and freedom is defined in terms of all
users, not just the developer subset.

While proprietary vendors can take code from the FreeBSD kernel just by
keeping the BSD License text in that code, the FreeBSD kernel cannot
reciprocate by taking code from those vendors. When this is done by
proprietary vendors, you champion it as an example of BSD "freedom". when a
GPL project does the exact same thing, suddenly it's an "attack" on

I see that as a hypocritical double standard.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:57:39 -0500
> Mark Woodward <markw at> wrote:
> > The BSD license has allowed a great deal of software to be subverted
> > to the detriment of the various BSD projects. This is a perfect
> > example of how the BSD license does not protect your freedom. Granted
> > in an ironic way.
> Such as how the Linux kernel "borrowed" a bunch of *BSD device drivers
> for its own use without contributing improvements back to the *BSD
> kernel projects? Talk about irony.
> Meanwhile Apple, the biggest *BSD shop in the world, has contributed
> most of its *BSD changes back to the BSD kernel communities and most of
> its KHTML changes back to the KDE community and everyone who uses
> WebKit. A the same time, Apple was forced to stop contributing to GCC
> and dump it, along with Samba, due to the "fuck TiVo" clause in the
> GPLv3.
> > No one is forcing anyone to do anything. A software author chooses
> > the GPL to protect the users of his software. If you want to modify
> > or use GPL code, that was not originally written by you, then you
> > must abide by the GPL by which you acquired the software.
> Derivatives of GPL software are GPL software. This is a requirement of
> the GPL. Thus, while the Linux kernel can take code from the FreeBSD
> kernel just by keeping the BSD License text in that code, the FreeBSD
> kernel cannot reciprocate without changing the license for the entire
> FreeBSD code tree. This is the force being used: accept the GPL for all
> of your software or you don't get to reap the benefits of collaboration
> with GPL software projects.
> Who's freedoms are being protected here? Certainly not the FreeBSD
> developers' or users'. They're stuck between a rock (a software
> license they don't want) and a hard place (having their code taken from
> them without the takers giving anything back).
> --
> Rich P.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at

John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
Email jabr at / WWW / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9
PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /