Re: JFS

["Jack J. Woehr" <jwoehr@ibm.net>]

"Todd T. Fries" wrote:

> 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 see. Thanx for the concise enumeration and differentiation. That was what
I wanted.

>  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"

Oh, quite assuredly thus spake RMS.

> While both would agree commercial is bad, free software is good, the definition
> of freedom is at stake.

It appears to me that the Berkeley-style license is advantageous for an
operating system, while the GPL-style license can be advantageous for
certain applications.

In the case of IBM's GPL'e Journalling File System, I can see the GPL's
appeal. It allows IBM to release their code and keep, effectively, a bit more
control over it, preventing it from being modifed, re-issued closed by their
competitors (accompanied by an ironic tip of the hat to IBM) and used to
compete with them.

So both seem to have their place in the bazaar.

Thanx again for your help.

--
Jack J. Woehr                 # Ceterum censeo
PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402   # in herbas belli
http://www.well.com/~jax/rcfb # ab idem desistamus.