Vaccine passports: https://archive.is/9psCP
Linus's comments: https://archive.is/pXzn9
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
That's the argument against "merely open source" style licenses, the freedom stops when someone dictates it stops. I can't integrate a new features done by another author on top of Bob's features with a mix of Alice's new changes, I have to reinvent what Bob did. Bob did not grant the same freedom to anyone else as he was given, he merely took them for himself.
GPL is used precisely because anyone can pick and choose improvements from other authors and not be stopped by somebody deciding to add restrictions and conditions willy-nilly. I can even switch to someone else's branch as a base and then pull in whatever I think is lacking and then sell a widget that runs the software with the source code provided to the customer.
So does GPL code, including every derivative down the line. No one may modify the license to add additional terms and conditions. What is Free, remains Free in perpetuity.
If you consider the ability to impose any arbitrary conditions and restrictions anywhere in the distribution chain by anyone more important than the code itself being accessible to everyone, how is that even different from licensing proprietary software? You can even draft a contract to be BSD-like with extra steps for your product so long as all parties agree.
They will do that regardless of the license of the software, but you can prevent anyone else that respects copyrights. How does BSD even help? Worst yet, BSD accepts this. Besides, if I can buy the version with GPL software and accessible source code, I'd pay more instead of getting the knock off version that I can't even modify.
That's a reason to use proprietary software, not open source. I can negotiate with the vendors however I want so long as all parties agree. I can even write a contract in such a way that allows me exclusive access and no one else.
How am I suppose to improve it if I don't have access to it? How am I suppose to use an upstream version that doesn't even work work on the widget I bought? Why not just get the Free software version that allows me to improve upon it?
That's why BSD is merely "open source" not Free software, because at the end of the day, access is entirely conditional on part of the distributors releasing the product, no different from the extra steps negotiating proprietary software licensing. It does nothing for Freedom.
If it was GPL to begin with, the code remains Free, indefinitely, including all the derivatives to anyone, anywhere. It does this by obligating everyone in the distribution chain to supply that source code to whoever received their product, without any additional terms or restrictions allowed to be added or removed.
We've been going around in circles, it is clearly going nowhere.