I like the BSD license. It’s not completely free, but there’s far fewer restrictions as to what someone can do with content licensed under it than with say, the GPL. If I release code under the BSD license, you can do almost anything you want with it as long as I’m credited for my part of the work. That’s all fine and dandy. With the GPL the authors that contributed before you have a lot more control over your subsequent contributions — Sounds a little like a pyramid scheme, doesn’t it?
On another note, there’s one thing I can’t stand in the world of licensing: The phrase “free for non-commercial use.” Why should I be allowed to use a piece of software at home, in the park, at school, but not at the office? What is the difference? The software’s writer’s not making any money from it, and everyone’s saying how wonderful it is. What is the difference between using a tool to make your life easier at home, and using that same tool when you’re at work? I guess what I’m saying, is I don’t see value in locking away software behind thoughtless clauses that the license writer threw in for a giggle.
So after such a long winded introduction to the topic, I’d like to point you over to the GPU page on sourceforge where the developers have modified the GPL to include Asimov’s first law of robotics. It’s a seemingly innocent thing to do, but at the same time it’s caused an uproar for all kinds of reasons.
My primary reason against changing a well-known and accepted license to include a seemingly trivial addition is this: Why bother? Aside the fact that it will give you a little thrill every time you read it (“Hey, aren’t we funny, look!”) what purpose does it really serve?
People have said it’s a good idea: This way the armies of the world can’t use the software to kill and maim. My take on the issue is that even if the righteous American war lords respect a software license, there’s always going to be people who don’t. There’s no way you can shame someone into respecting your intellectual property if they’re pointing a superweapon of some sort at your head.
So when it comes to issues like this, there’s a need for software, the software exists, and no license is going to stop anyone. I know that if I had a battalion of troops at my front door hungry for my blood, I’d use all the help I could get to get away. In addition, I don’t see the point taking away one more freedom from a license that’s designed entirely to hinder your right to modify and redistribute in the first. I don’t so much hate the GPL as I don’t see the value in it.
Pascal has a somewhat less inflammatory coverage. What’s your take?
Responses
At The Techtoucian Network, we're a bunch of hippes, and love your conversation! Please keep it real though; check out comment policy to see what we're all about.
Post a comment or leave a Trackback.
4 Comments
You can’t argue against any other licencing scheme if you believe the BSD is the best licence to use.
The BSD licence, as you said, has fewer restrictions than the GPL. As I understand it, the BSD licence is less restrictive than the GPL because BSD code can be incorporated into non-BSD programmes, or made proprietary altogether, and as long as the original author is credited, this is totally OK.
Of course, the GPL requires that all GPL’d code remains as such.
What I’m getting at is: if you support the BSD licence, you are supporting the most freedoms of any software licencing, and it would logically follow that seeing as you’re so carefree about your code, you would be so with others code too… hence, whether someone else licences under the GPL, BSD, or any other licence (even proprietary), you shouldn’t concern yourself with their choice, as they have the freedom to do with their code what they want.
I understand what you’re getting at, but it just bugs me to no end that people do things like this. It’s completely unecessary and screws around everyone else.
I suppose it is their work, and their choice. In this case it’s a rational choice based on their point of view. In just about every other case it’s someone making up a license because everyone else is doing it.
I personally believe that the GPL is the best licence, but each to their own.
I am somewhat divided on the ‘extended’ GPL that these people developed. I mean, fair enough they have an objection to the military and/or its practices, but by limiting the military’s freedom, they are going against core open-source principles by limiting distribution.
I understand that the GPL on its own also has distribution limitations, but those limitations are only there to serve the purpose of open-source and to further the spread of the GPL, which IMO is not such a bad thing. ;-)
While there are folks out there that license their software under restrictive proprietary licenses which ends up all in a shiny box and such I don’t see a problem with what the GPU devs did. :)
Thanks for your feedback.