Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

[Marcus Metzler <mocm@example.com>]

>>>>> "Curt" == Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com> writes:

    Curt> On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:
    >> I totally agree with that but I think current practice is to
    >> use "ãããããã" instead of "èçããã". Or did I miss the
    >> places where "èçããã" is used intensively ?

    Curt> Actually, maybe someone can explain this to me, because I've
    Curt> been puzzling over it for years.

    Curt> So with something like BSD-licensed software, when you get
    Curt> hold of it, you can do what you like with it. You can change
    Curt> it, keep your changes to yourself, and sell compiled
    Curt> versions for money, if that's what you want to do. There are
    Curt> very few restrictions on your freedom to do what you want
    Curt> with that code, beyond clause three the four-clause versions
    Curt> of that license (which generally compell you to say that
    Curt> your product includes code from wherever).

    Curt> With GPL'd software, the situation seems to me exactly the
    Curt> opposite.  You have many more restrictions on what you can
    Curt> do with this software; for example, you cannot change the
    Curt> source, keep your changes secret, and sell your new version,
    Curt> as you can with the BSD license. However, anybody who gets
    Curt> any version of a GPL'd program, under the license, is
    Curt> entitled to the source code at no charge. The main effect of
    Curt> this seems to be that it is highly unlikely you will ever
    Curt> have to pay money for a piece of GPL'd software if you don't
    Curt> want to, even if it's a version with substantial
    Curt> modifications that the developer would rather keep
    Curt> proprietary.

    Curt> Now, I (perhaps naively) interpret "free beer" as "you don't
    Curt> have to pay money for it," and "free speech" as "you can do
    Curt> what you want." But it seems to me that the GPL can be
    Curt> summarized as, "the software will always be free of charge,
    Curt> and we place restrictions on the receivers to make that so,"
    Curt> and the BSD licence can be summarised as, "you can do what
    Curt> you want with it, even charge people for variants." So
    Curt> wouldn't that mean that the GPL is "free as in beer," and
    Curt> the BSD license is "free as in speech"?

    Curt> Why is it claimed that the GPL is "free as in speech" when
    Curt> it places more restrictions on the freedom of the users of
    Curt> the software than the BSD (or many other) open source
    Curt> licenses?

Is this a trolling attempt?
There are no restrictions on the user under the GPL, only on (re-)
distribution.

Marcus

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Dr. Marcus O.C. Metzler        |                                   |
| mocm@example.com            | http://www.metzlerbros.de/        |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/
 |>>>             Quis custodiet ipsos custodes                 <<<|