[luau] NEWS: MS-funded think tank propagates open-source lies

Dean Fujioka dean at poshawaii.com
Thu Jun 13 08:42:00 PDT 2002


Sorry, I was quoting the first article. it should have read:
David F. Skoll wrote, "The BSD license is good because it allows 
corporations to benefit
 from otherpeople's work without offering them any compensation, and 
without having to
 allow third parties to benefit from derived work."

It seems that the author is anti business then, in his "Tough, Adapt or 
Die" approach. So he is painting BSD to be "bad".  That was my point.

dean


Jimen Ching wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Dean Fujioka wrote:
>  
>
>>The BSD license is good because it allows corporations to benefit from other
>>people's work without offering them any compensation, and without having to
>>allow third parties to benefit from derived work.
>>
>>FreeBSD is bad?
>>    
>>
>
>It depends on your goals.  The goals of open source and free software are
>to share source code and ideas.  The description above does not seem to do
>this.  I.e. I am sharing my source code, but they are not sharing theirs.
>
>If you look closely at very large and complex software like Linux, Apache,
>X Window, GCC, Samba, etc, you will see that people who are working on
>these software are full time developers paid by commercial companies.  If
>you look at X Window, features like Xinerama and 3D support, those things
>are contributed by commercial companies.  In Linux, I doubt we would have
>a new VM or journalling file systems if it wasn't for commercial
>companies.
>
>Does the license matter?  Definitely.  Two examples I can think of are GCC
>and X Window.  With GCC, NeXT used GCC's backend and developed an
>Objective C frontend.  But NeXT did not want to release the source code.
>Since GCC was under the GPL, they were forced to release it.  As a result,
>we now have a free Objective C compiler.  This would not have happened
>without such licenses.  The second example is X Window.  The X consortium
>wanted to change the licensing of the X Window source code, in essence
>making it proprietary.  This would have forced the Xfree86 project to fork
>the tree.  But the community complained and the license was reverted back
>to the original X license.
>
>This occured because the X license allows it.  If it were under the GPL,
>this would have never occured.  Threats like these occur about once a year
>because of licenses like the BSDL.  The only way OSS and Free Software
>will work is if everyone contributes.  This means both OSS developers and
>OSS users, including companies that want to use OSS.  Large complex
>software will never come about if they are developed on the weekends.
>
>--jc
>  
>





More information about the LUAU mailing list