GPLv3 will help FreeBSD take some users away from Linux, according to the founder and vice president of The FreeBSD Foundation.
Writing in the FreeBSD Foundation's August newsletter, Justin Gibbs said: "GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial users of open-source software. Against the backdrop of GPLv3, the stark difference between the BSD licensing philosophy and that of the Free Software Foundation is only too clear," he said.
One difference Gibbs saw was future-proofing the licences.
"A GPL proponent might argue that a licence for free software must be upgraded periodically since we cannot anticipate what new use models for free software might be developed that restrict freedom. The BSD licence is as permissive as possible exactly because we cannot predict the future or to what beneficial purpose, commercial or otherwise, our software will be used," said Gibbs.
Read this
Tutorial: Rescuing Linux when it won't start
Linux isn't immune to failure, but certain tips and strategies can rescue your machine from an untimely demise...
Citing high support costs and an inability to guarantee adherence to specification for licensing, Gibbs said "now was the perfect time to clarify the differences [between GPLv3 and BSD licenses] and start to engage with large current and potential users of open-source software to understand their use models and how the GPLv3 might impact them".
Gibbs said the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an effective response to GPLv3 and he implored the community to make the most of the opportunity it provided.
Talkback
Yes the GPL is a diff lic than the BSD, however in all past times GPL 'ed software has been more ubiquitous just because the user who wants to use (and distribute) has to be open about that to the world and return his changes/additions. (which most do gladly, earning respect)
Therefore there is more out there, a most critical factor. There is more happening and more available. People notice that.
Many of BSD software borrowers can' t be bothered to give anything back for what they took from BSD's coders.
The FSF tries it utmost to protect user freedom and coders rights. Something that simply is not understood by All ..
The ZDNet article attempts to put words in Justin Gibbs's mouth. The Newsletter does not say that "GPLv3 may drive users from Linux to FreeBSD". It says that there are deep differences between the BSD and FSF licensing policies an that "this is the perfect time to clarify these differences".
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
This post has been removed by a moderator.
Thanks for your message, unixmania, and I do partly understand your concerns. I don't think we've put words in Gibbs' mouth, but I do accept that some of the newsletter which best explains the headline wasn't included in the article, and we should have done this. Here's some of the relevant content from the newsletter (I've abbreviated for length).
"Appliance vendors in particular have the most to lose if the large body of software currently licensed under GPLv2 today migrates to the new license. They will no longer have the freedom to use GPLv3 software and restrict modification of the software installed on their hardware. High support costs ... and being unable to guarantee adherence to specifications in order to gain licensing ... are only two of a growing list of issues for these users. In short, there is a large base of OpenSource consumers that are suddenly very interested in understanding alternatives to GPL licensed software."