License to FUD
Summary
Topics
I found answers in many places: ZDNet Talkbacks attached to the column,private e-mail, as well as By far the majority of replies and comments came from people who preferredthe GPL. These people explained that developers consider the GPL to be intheir interest, even though the GPL forces them (and subsequentdevelopers) to publish any updates or modifications. But there werecertainly many people offering the BSD point of view, maintaining thattheir approach was indeed better for businesses, pointing out howcompanies such as Apple and Microsoft benefited their users by Then there was the handful of BSD supporters who seemed indignant that I'deven asked the question. I wonder what were they scared of. As I read the responses, a different, far more widespread fear emerged:most programmers did not want the work they released to be used in amanner they did not support. The BSD philosophy seems to hold thatcreating and giving away code, then seeing it used by others, is victoryand reward enough. But most of the GPL supporters disapproved of allowing"others" to close off source code and hide enhancements. Likewise, IBM, SGI, and other companies don't want to contribute sourcecode to the community if competitors can use it against them. While usingthe GPL won't prevent competitors from using the code, it does keep themfrom making proprietary extensions. This appears to be the strongest casein favor of corporate support of Linux and the GPL. And while some bigcompanies such as Microsoft and Apple use BSD-based code, few of themencourage its use by others. (It's interesting to note that Apple, while having no problem usingBSD-based code made by others, releases its own open source stuff under alicense that's morerestrictive than the GPL.) The BSD philosophy of sharing code was born in the days of a friendliercomputing landscape, when people freely shared code and computer access.Before the Internet they used the Today the computing world has become nastier and more predatory. Just because someone uses the GPL doesn't mean they buy into the dogma ofStallman and his Free SoftwareFoundation. Not everyone using or creating GPL code believes in thenecessity of ending all use and development of proprietary software. Manyappear to use the GPL simply as a way to balance the playing field forcertain core elements of computer software. (Of course, opinions varywildly on what constitutes the "core," but that's a different story.) The GPL has gotten a job, taken the car keys, and left home; it's notunder its father's control anymore (if it ever was). Companies are findingthat by using both GPL and commercial applications, they can have the bestof both worlds and develop sustainable business models. The BSD approachworks best in some scenarios--such as for reference implementations ofstandards aimed at maximum deployment. For instance, having a BSD-licensedimplementation of the But for most other uses, either GPL or full proprietary is preferred inthe not-so-kind computing environment of today. How can the BSD license build momentum in today's computing environment?Tell Evan in the Talkback below or in the ZDNetLinuxForum. Or write to Evan directly at
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
