GPL vs BSD Licence

[Paul Robinson]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 08:40:37AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:

> It is not at all useless; in fact, it is very important. If the
> differences are not pointed out, then the GPL and its malicious
> anti-programmer, anti-business agenda wins by default. If someone
> preaches that licensing differences are meaningless, then he is
> either unintentionally or intentionally pushing Stallman's agenda,
> which includes depriving programmers of a decent living wage (see
> the "GNU Manifesto".)

We've definitely been here before, but I enjoy kicking Stallman when we
have him metaphorically on the floor of the mailing list.

Remember, GNU/GPL is about building community spirit, not about making
money. You should make your money by perhaps going on lecture tour, or
stealing from banks. You must not make money writing code, because that
is evil and means code does not make empower the communist revolution
and socialist uprising. You like BSD? Why do you hate freedom?

I honestly believe, joking aside, Stallman's original vision was about
producing a system for developers, not for users. He wanted developers
to be part of a community, not part of some "my code is great, but you
can only see it if I get 'X' back in return" circle-jerk. He has
succeeded quite measurably, but I don't think his vision was ever meant
to apply to a society where every home has a PC (if not more than one)
and quite considerable computing power can be obtained brand new for the
same price as a TV.

Plus, playing Devil's advocate, BSD has its own faults.

-- 
Paul Robinson

http://www.iconoplex.co.uk/ 
"All I know is I'm not a Marxist" - Karl Marx