Re: What about an OS monopoly under GNU license?

[Milan Zimmermann <mzimmerm@worldchat.com>]

I would like to gain some understanding of the difference between GPL
and FreeBSD license on a simple example. I realize this is a basic
problem, but it may be beneficial to explain to other people on this
list. It will probably be misleading because it covers only part of the
possible problems.

Let's say that I write a piece of software under GPL and another under
FreeBSD. 

Are the following correct and what catches do they contain?

1. Let's say that Corel and Microsoft like my GPL'ed code and call me
that they want to use it. I can say "Yes" to Corel and "No" to
Microsoft. This "Yes" can be such that it will free Corel from having to
return the modifications to the code. Correct? What if other people have
worked on the code. Where is kept the list of people who have to agree
before the "Yes" can be issued? 

2. Let's say that Corel and Microsoft find my FreeBSD code on the web
somewhere. Can they both to take it, modify it and do whatever they
wish?

I apologize if I misunderstood something badly and this makes no sense. 
Could a practical example which makes more sense constructed?

Thank, Milan Zimmermann

Brett Glass wrote:
> 
> At 12:02 PM 3/29/98 -0500, Carl Beaudry wrote:
> 
> >Not at all.  Nobody pays me to breathe, but I *do* earn a
> >reasonably nice living from modifying and adapting GNU
> >software.
> 
> In short, you are willing to make your living as a consultant
> rather than by selling commercial software. You may be happy
> in your niche, but many people would like to have the chance to
> write commercial products and compete with folks like Microsoft!
> And we need them to.
> 
> >It's *you* who are reprogramming he
> >English language by using only an ideologically sliced-up
> >definition of "business."
> 
> Nope; it's you who are casting the term so broadly that it
> is rendered meaningless.
> 
> >> [Stallman's] intent, with the license, is to prevent
> >> the development of conventional commerical software that includes
> >> freely distributed code.
> >
> >True, but only because the "conventions" are antithetical to
> >human cooperation
> 
> Nonsense. I have led many teams of developers in the creation of
> commercial software, and you can bet that they were cooperative.
> 
> >> This hurts businesses and hurts innovation.
> >
> >There you go again, equivocating "business" with software
> >ransom.
> 
> Your use of the word "ransom" above is an excellent example of
> the extremism inherent in Richard Stallman's philosophy. (If
> anything, it's the GPL that holds software for "ransom" by
> requiring innovators to give away the fruits of their labor
> if they use the code.) By contrast, the Berkeley license
> permits broad re-use of the code.
> 
> >As I have shown, it is not only possible, but
> >lucrative to earn a living creating software without holding
> 
> >it hostage.
> 
> The use of the word "hostage" above is, again, both extreme
> and misleading. Also see more above.
> 
> >Microsoft is *always* going to have more programmer time to
> >devote to a task, not that it's helped their code quality
> >though.  And because of the open source requirements of the
> >GPL, the little guy can *read* the GPL'd code and create a
> >commercial workalike if he so chooses unlike  the proprietized
> >alternatives.
> 
> Not so. This would be a "derivative work," and hence would also
> be covered by the GPL.
> 
> >Where you are correct is that, if the resulting software is not
> >any better than the GNU version, the developer is wasting his
> >time trying to hold his own software hostage.
> 
> Again, the extreme nature of your language betrays the extremism
> inherent in your viewpoint. Protecting one's work via copyright
> is no more "holding it hostage" than my owning a car is "holding
> it hostage" (Karl Marx to the contrary, of course).
> 
> This extreme viewpoint actually leads the Free Software
> Foundation to advocate copyright infringement. As it says on
> its own Web pages:
> 
> "If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping
> and murder, you might prefer not to use the word 'piracy' to
> describe it. Neutral terms such as 'prohibited copying' or
> 'illegal copying' are available for use instead. Some of us might
> even prefer to use a positive term such as 'sharing information
> with your neighbor.'" [Note: I'm not making this up; this is truly
> what it says. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.]
> 
> This is why so many commercial software companies are unwilling
> to create versions of their software for Linux -- and why the
> 
> ones that do are mostly companies that distribute their software
> for free -- such as Netscape.
> 
> The Free Software Foundation, and Mr. Stallman, feel free to
> accept and reject different portions of the Constitution at
> will. In particular, they reject the notion of intellectual
> property wholesale. The Constitutional provision which
> authorizes Congress to grant authors and inventors, for a
> limited time, the exclusive right to their work has proved
> to be the greatest incentive to creativity in the history
> of Mankind. Stallman & Co. are, in this regard, no better
> than those who believe that the limits on the duration of
> intellectual property rights should be abolished, eliminating
> the "public domain."
> 
> >People will pay for software & support because their
> >business depends upon it, not because they are
> >philanthropists.  It works for me every single day.
> 
> Well, then, aren't you "holding them for ransom?" How could
> you POSSIBLY consider this to be ethical? ;-)
> 
> >surely you recognize that the Linux market is much larger than the
> >FreeBSD market and that Linux runs on more platforms.
> 
> Actually, the *BSDs run on far more platforms than Linux and
> are, in general, considered to be more stable. Linux happens
> to have a larger installed base right now, but this is merely
> due to lack of publicity for BSD as an alternative. Knowledgeable
> managers use FreeBSD rather than Linux when stability is important.
> 
> >how is
> >it then that the GPL impeded Linux' development relative to the
> >Berkeley-licensed FreeBSD?
> 
> Again, you seem to be intentionally missing the point. The GPL
> hinders the creation of commercial products which use portions
> of GPLed code.
> 
> >Secondly, why must software be held for ransom in order to be
> >paid for?  You are accepting the received propaganda without
> >proof.
> 
> You're raving.
> 
> --Brett Glass

-- 
----
Java now and to the next Millennium! - Visit http://www.javalobby.org
----
And one of this Millennium's "freedom fighters" at the end:

"We're giving away a pretty good browser as part of the operating
 system. How long can they [Netscape] survive selling it?"
 -Steve Ballmer, Microsoft executive vice president of sales and support
  Forbes, January 1997
-----