[ale] Are our Ethernet drivers in danger?

[Byron A Jeff]

> 
> on 7/3/01 11:32 PM, Darin Lang at darin at doolang.com wrote:
> 
> > The GPL is an extremely restrictive license
> 
> It is the most unrestrictive license there is. And it's existence is what
> has made GNU-Linux possible. You would not be in this group without it.

Uh Oh! I can smell the flames!

Let me put in my three cents:

1) The GPL is restrictive. It prevents the conversion of GPL code into 
proprietary code. It even prevents the bundling of GPL code with proprietary
code. It forces the redistribution of the source code of modifications of
original GPL code.  It's restrictive and we should all be glad that it is. It
kills the embrace and extend tactic of privitation because no GPL code that
is distributed can be private. It must be released and anyone can redistribute
and modify the results. In terms maintaining the openness of the code and
the freeness (in cost, modifiability, and redistribution) it is the most
free license for the code. But it places significant restrictions on modifiers
and distributors of the code. It forces all distributed code, and all of its 
derivatives. be available in source form to any and every user of that code

2) The BSD license is the most permissive. It can be co-opted, made proprietary,
allow for embrace and extend without further contribution of its users, 
modifiers, and distributors. It no longer even requires a recognition of the
author. In short code can fall into a propritary black hole never to be seen
again. In terms of usability for modifiers and distributors it is the most
free license. But in terms of potential cost to users in terms of source
code access to extensions for modification, it's the weakest license.

3) On the original thread: Donald Becker was a contractor. He wasn't a govt
employee or an employee of NASA. Therefore his code was not subject to the
public domain laws of govt. work.

BAJ
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.