freebsd should be rewritten based on microkernel architecture

[Polytropon]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 14:18:07 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> As a *programmer* I make my living from writing code and the fundamental
> problem with GPL is it forces me to give away the one way I make a living
> (I do not sell hardware, IT services, movie rentals, etc.).   How is it
> fair under any possible definition of fair to force me to give away the
> thing I need/use to survive?

The _choice_ of licensing terms is very important to a programmer.
The BSD license has been criticized as a "rape me license" quite
often. However, if a developer is fine with that, and intendedly
wants to allow others to make money using the code he wrote, the
BSD license can do that. (It might be worth noting that copyright
and "inventorship" have nothing to do with licensing.) Other
licenses such as the CDDL and the different GPL versions grant
rights to potential users in _different_ ways. Licensing terms
in commercial software can be totally different (and sometimes
can allow legally justified harm toward the user).

Given the terms that the GPL requires, the programmer who wishes
to make money with his work will have to be quite careful in how
far he lets GPL-licensed material dictate how he works. The
common consensus is: If you don't agree with it - don't use it.
So the programmer simply has to avoid GPL-licensed material.
That is the choice _he_ can make. The creators of the licensed
material already made _their_ choice - by choosing GPL. That
doesn't of course please everyone, but it is a valid decision.
The fairness in this context is that _you_ cannot be forced to
give away your work for free, but it requires you to _not_ use
GPL-licensed material.

The construct here is: You want something - you do something.
(And likewise: You don't want something - you don't do something.)

Yes, this is oversimplified. ;-)




-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...