[vox] [fwd] The Death of Linuxworld

[Bill Broadley]

Chris Evans wrote:
> Takers will take, makers will make.
> Your point? 

GPL is for makers.  Once you GPL something folks can't take it
private/commercial without providing the source to whatever used the GPL code.
For that reason there aren't any few linux kernel forks, and the majority of
unix use is closely related to mainline.

BSD is for takers, it allows commercial outfits to slurp up the source and
make no contributions back to the community.  Thus tons of BSD forks, some
open, some not.  FreeBSD, PC-BSD, Nokia IPSO, Juniper OS, Darwin, Netapp,
NetBSD, OpenBSD, Ultrix, OSF/1, SunOS, Next/OpenStep, 386BSD, etc.

So while I don't support GPL 3's ideas of if you don't agree with me you can't
use the source.  I do support GPLs idea that if you take GPL source you can't
take it closed source.  So when some random embedded platform gets a linux
port I can be sure that I can tweak that kernel myself.  So suddenly I can use
my PDA, Cell phone, Router, set top box, whatever and extend it's
functionality as I see fit.  Granted some platforms have aggressive enough DRM
to prevent end user kernel tweaking.

So yeah I support GPL-2, not GPL-3.  Did you have any substantial complaints
about it besides that it's long and and silly?  I didn't follow your copywrite
statement.  GPL-2 doesn't allow you to restrict the use, publication or
related as a copywrite does.  In fact it's just the opposite, often referred
to copyleft.  GPL does not require, or even imply that you are handing over
copywrite to the FSF.

Sure the Berkeley license is short and simple, it doesn't really restrict
anything.  For the most part it allows (but doesn't require) unlimited
redistribution, copywrite notice, and disclaimers.  Fairly close to public domain.