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

> From: Mark Woodward [mailto:markw at]
>> 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.

No problem.  You like GPL because it prevents people from doing something you don't like them to do.  But other developers are sometimes happy to permit such usage.  I'm not saying one license is better than another except in specific situations - but you are.  You've categorized this as "theft" unconditionally.

Point remains, if you say you don't like CDDL because of restrictions it imposes, and you like GPL instead, that's the opposite of truth, because CDDL is less restrictive.  Under GPL, if some software is built into a larger derivative work (statically linked), then all the other source code contributing to the larger work must also be GPL.  Under CDDL, they don't have the same restriction - Some CDDL code can be built into a larger work, without placing a restriction on the licensing of the *other* source code.  Under CDDL, only the original CDDL code and its subsequent modifications must be redistributed under CDDL.  But they allow you to statically link with potentially closed-source code, producing a binary that was partially the result of CDDL code and partially the result of other code (potentially closed-source.)

Some people including myself choose to distribute software using even less restrictive licenses.  I am personally biased in favor of the MIT license.  I write the software, and if somebody else incorporates it into whatever they're doing, they can do whatever the heck they want, even close-source their fork if they want to.  Kudos to them, if they're making closed-source modifications.  I didn't write those modifications, and I don't feel a need to demand access to them.  :-)  Just my opinion, for some of the code that I write and distribute.

It's all personal opinion, and there is no absolute right or wrong, which is what you're saying.  But extremist opinions are commonplace - the only thing I object to repeatedly is the incorrect assertion that CDDL is more restrictive than GPL, and using that as the grounds for your extreme position.

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 /