Re: JFS

["Todd T. Fries" <todd@fries.net>]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 05:21:00AM +0000, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> "Todd T. Fries" wrote:
> 
> > If the documentation/specs/technical info is freely available, then someone
> > could certainly implement it.  Unfortunately IBM is releasing the code
> > they're allowing their employees to contribute as GPL, which would be an
> > unwelcomed addition to the BSD repository.
> 
> Hmm, what's the BSDological objection to GPL? As a heathen residing outside
> the temple :-)  I was taught "GPL good, commercial software bad" by Stallman
> in person. What are the wrinkles here, please?

Define free.   Proceed when you believe you have been clear with yourself.

Does 'free' to you mean:

a) you can nab the source off the net
b) you can re-distribute binaries and source without licensing headaches
b) you can make your own changes
c) you can make your own product derivitave, distributing source
d) you are not liable for damages if you make changes and contribute them back
e) you have the option of not contributing changes back
f) you can do whatever you want with the source, just give credit
g) all of the above


Checkout http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for a thorough explanation, but
suffice it to say, GPL is 'free' in the sense of a,b,c and d. BSD code is
free in the sense of 'g'.   I could be totally off base, but based on what
I know the GPL sense you were told by 'the man' goes like this:
    "you have a duty to your world to assign your work to the FSF copyright,
     it is a moral thing" 

   While BSD replies:
    "...but you are limiting the freedom of what you can do with the code if
     you use GPL.  Limited freedom is not total freedom.  Total freedom is
     unencumbered freedom."

While both would agree commercial is bad, free software is good, the definition
of freedom is at stake.
-- 
Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net