On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 08:14:28AM -0400, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Byron Jeff wrote: > >> > Freedom 0 is the freedom to use the software for any purpose. > >> > >> But the GPL doesn't give you that freedom without additional restrictions. > > > > It does. As pointed out earlier in the thread, the GPL only deals with > > modification and redistribution of software. It can be used for any > > purpose. > > > > ****************************************************** > >From http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html: > > Nobody should be restricted by the software they use. There are four > freedoms that every user should have: > the freedom to use the software for any purpose, > the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, > the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and > the freedom to share the changes you make. > When a program offers users all of these freedoms, we call it free software. > ****************************************************** > > To me GPL itself does not meet the 3rd condtion. BSD and > Modified BSD does. So personally I like Modified BSD license > better than GPL. > We were talking about the first freedom, not the third. There's no point in getting into another GPL vs. BSD debate. That debate hinges on the rights of the developer vs. the rights of the user. If you believe that the BSD license is better then you also believe that the rights of the developer should superceed the rights of the downstream user. That's a belief. I'm not going to bother trying to refute it. > On the other hand, from FSF's point of view, the agenda is > more important than the above "freedom". And imposing > limit of the modification and redistribution does help on > its agenda. On this perspective, it is more suitable for FSF. That's also a belief. I'm not going to bother to refute it either. > In the end, it is perfectly right for the owner of the software > to use any license they see fit. So it is perfectly ok for > FSF to use GPL on the software that it oversees. That's probable the one thing we actuall agree on. > Olin's license on his software is very good and I think it is > Open Source (kind of modified BSD). It doesn't meet the common definition of the community or the OSI tenant. It doesn't mean that it isn't a good license. It doesn't mean that Olin doesn't have the right to put any license he see fit onto his software. It doesn't mean that the GPL or BSD license is better or worse than other licenses. It only means that it doesn't fit the community definition of open source. Nothing more, nothing less. > Olin's licnse on his USBprog firmware and USB host driver > is more restrictive than his other software. But it is still > perfectly ok and reasonable to me. It's OK and reasonable to me too. It's just not open source by the community definition because of the restrictions that it places. (thought to self: I KNEW it was a bad idea to wander into this thread!) It's a pendantic point. One that's really not worth debating. BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist