On Sun, 2011-01-09 at 12:02 +0530, steve wrote:
I know ^^^^ that's not exactly the reason you are banging your head, but you are banging it nonetheless since you just can't seem to convince people in either simple or a long-winded manner just /how/ BSD is ^more free^. heh
I am banging my head on the keyboard because if you see sub thread, the reason I posted that list of projects that have happily existed for years without being taken over was to illustrate the point that for a project to sustain as open source, it needs to attract a critical mass of developers who each retain their own copyright and hence make it impossible for anyone to buy the copyright. The type of license is irrelevant here. Mysql is the classic case on the one side and linux is the classic case on the other side. And both are GPLed. The Apache project is a classic case on the BSD license side, but I am unable to find an equivalent of Mysql model of development on the BSD side - but I am sure the GPLwalas would be able to supply any number of examples.
I was bit surprised to find that apart from Narendra in the case of small scripts, every one else on this list publishes their open source code under the GPL. On analysing why, I think I have found the solution. I am an applications developer - right at the bottom of the food chain and being in the python/django world, which is mainly driven by BSD style licenses, I find using the BSD style license helps me remain friends with the people whose code I use. But looking at the examples given by the list members, I now realise that most of them are linux kernel hackers - or developers of embedded stuff. This stuff (as I have mentioned before) could be best GPLed - and in fact GPL rules in this sphere.
I had however expected that those in this list who contribute code to the modern scripting languages - perl, python php etc - would appreciate and abide by the BSD style licenses of those languages. But it looks like most of the list members hack on C, C++ and java - which are all GPLed. I personally am incapable of learning these languages (I *have* tried) but I have nothing but respect for people who can - and so have to respect their choice of GPL - they have no choice actually.
And it is obvious that no one contributes code to the apache family of applications (probably no one uses them since these come much lower down in the food chain than the kernel, GNU toolchain and the core languages). Fortunately I happen to belong to other lists where such lower level people exist - so life is not all complications ;-)
I admit in my earlier days I never used to sleep well because I was worried that someone would steal my code over night and either GPL it or make it closed source. But I am happy to note that all the code in the various repositories is still there every morning when I check - so now I sleep well.
I was surprised to find that if one contributes translations to launchpad, one is compelled to submit it under the BSD license. What are the consequences of integrating a BSD licensed translation into a GPL'ed code base? But it looks like no one here contributes to launchpad - which is a pity, there are so many applications which need translation and a lot of people who cannot contribute code or documentation can do this - and launchpad makes it so easy. You can contribute as much you like - even just do a word a day if you do not have much time. But unfortunately it is BSD license, so some one may 'steal' the translation and make it proprietary. And why do some thing so mundane as translation when one can hack the kernel?
One big positive that I can take from this debate is that I learned that the GPL does not compel one to release one's code to the public if one distributes it. A can sell the code to B under GPL, and then flog the same copy to C and to D and to E ... B, C, D et al, having paid huge amounts for the 'product' are very unlikely to give it away, so as long as they do not meet up A can go laughing all the way to the bank. Nice to know.