Liberal vs Conservative [Re: GPL vs BSD Licence]

[Vijay Kaul]

Forgive my etiquete, please. Since I'm certainly not answering any  
questions, I felt it appropriate to take this off of "questions." Is that  
good form, or have I put the proverbial foot in mouth?

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:47:14 -0400 (EDT), <TM4525 at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 10/25/04 4:21:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> amf at hobbit.neveragain.de writes:

<-- big snip -->

> The lack of foresight of the GPL is that, if Jupiter  had no choice but  
> to
> give away their work, then the work never would have been done, so even
> people willing to pay for it wouldn't have it.
>
> The GPL vs BSD issue is like liberal vs conservative.

I agree-ish. However, I would say that "conservative" implies (loosely)  
"remaining the same," which is to say, supporting institutions or  
traditions already in place.
On the other hand, "liberal," in this case, would mean the opposite:  
unbound by tradition. (liberal also, of course, is anti-authoritarian)
Both licences seem to be liberal, then, in that they break from  
traditional licencing. Look deeper, though, and you see that the BSD  
licence allows further development without restriction, while the GPL  
licence imposes its own tradition, as best it can, in perpetuity.

> The liberal plaform
> sounds
> good and reasonable to those who don't understand the bigger picture.

This was the comment to which I had to reply. I know the GPL/BSD argument  
has been had over and over again. Is GPL "free-er" or is BSD "free-er,"  
etc. And, although I did bring it up, I'm sorry :P  I must point out,  
though, that I always considered the BSD licence to be the most liberal  
available. Also, I find it insulting to think that by following a "liberal  
platform," I'm missing "the bigger picture." In fact, I feel that by  
following the *conservative* GPL licence, many are missing the "bigger  
picture:" if you attempt to exert any sort of authority over things (code,  
furniture, land, people) you will propigate the notion that authority over  
those things is an acceptable one. By truly relinquishing control over the  
things, you are allowing freedom, as an ideology and practice, to gain  
momentum--not to mention, being quite liberal.

<-snip->

>
> FreeBSD is a perfect example of a thriving project with BSD licensing. Is
> FreeBSD
> a "dead end"? Is the community worse off because companies like Cayote  
> Point
> and
> Emerging Technologies don't give the source to their products? No,  
> because
> those
> products never would have been created if they were hindered by the GPL.

Absolutely. And maybe, after existing for decades and gaining more and  
more market share, and, therefore, economic value, these companies will  
decide that BSDing their code: is *not* financial suicide, will spur  
innovation, allows them to improve their product cheaply and quickly,  
improves securit, on & on, and so, they will. Instead of forcing the  
licence on these companies, as the GPL would've done, the BSD licence, and  
the success of BSD/Open Source projects, is simply showing the way. If  
that's not a liberal idea, what is?

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/