So, why Don't we Give Microsoft our Code?

[Penguin Guy]

So we got some brilliant operating system thing here called Linux. Now if we allowed people to use our code freely (without releasing their modified version to the public), companies like Microsoft and Apple would then make super-brilliant operating system things. This is good, is it not? It has no negative effect on Linux and since anyone can use our code, it may mean a lot of new OSs. A lot of new OSs, in turn, means more competition ,and lower prices. For those who want open source software, Linux isn't going to disappear is it?

Please be respectful of others opinions:

I guess I just find it astonishing that you can say people who licence their work under the GPL are being "selfish". These people owe you nothing. You owe them something for making their software open source in my opinion. At the very least a cool, frosty beer if you use their project :)

[RiceMonster]

By that logic, they'd already be using BSD code. Oh wait, Apple already is!

[tom66]

Problem is, Linux would never improve, because companies would have no requirement to give back their modified code.

[TheNosh]

Problem is, Linux would never improve, because companies would have no requirement to give back their modified code.

they might give back anyway. apple does, look at Darwin. it's totally well polished and worthwhile, they gave back some useful stuff.

[Bachstelze]

So we got some brilliant operating system thing here called Linux. Now if we allowed people to use our code freely (without releasing their modified version to the public), companies like Microsoft and Apple would then make super-brilliant operating system things. This is good, is it not? It has no negative effect on Linux and since anyone can use our code, it may mean a lot of new OSs. A lot of new OSs, in turn, means more competition ,and lower prices. For those who want open source software, Linux isn't going to disappear is it?

Congratulations, you have realized how selfish Linux (and the GPL in general) is. :) I wish all Linux users would open their eyes like you did.

[Copernicus1234]

I see what you did there...

Well, if companies like Google took the latest Ubuntu, built their own user interface, included some custom apps, and sold it to people, I think a lot of people would buy it.

Just have a look at what HTC did with Sense for Android. Now a lot of people want Sense, not plain old Android. :)

The problem with open source apps is that they usually dont look as good as commercial products. Looks sell.

[Ozor Mox]

Congratulations, you have realized how selfish realistic Linux (and the GPL in general) is. :) I wish all Linux users would open their eyes like you did.

Fixed for you. Seriously, there's a good reason why so many more open source projects are licensed under the GPL than BSD. Who wants to give away their hard work for free, only to have it assimilated into some proprietary project and sold for profit? I can't think of much that would be more frustrating. Of course, everyone is free to licence there work however they like, as it should be.

If you were kidding/being sarcastic then, well, you got me :)

[RiceMonster]

Fixed for you. Seriously, there's a good reason why so many more open source projects are licensed under the GPL than BSD. Who wants to give away their hard work for free, only to have it assimilated into some proprietary project and sold for profit? I can't think of much that would be more frustrating. Of course, everyone is free to licence there work however they like, as it should be.

If you were kidding/being sarcastic then, well, you got me :)

I don't think people who use BSD/MIT/X11 licenses are concerned about people making profit off their code. People make profit off Linux too, you know, so what's the difference? It's that people using those licenses want people to be able to do as they like with their code.

[Bachstelze]

Who wants to give away their hard work for free, only to have it assimilated into some proprietary project and sold for profit?

Let me see... the OpenSSH (and BSD in general) devs? Xorg? Apache? PHP? Thank God we don't have to rely on GPL people for SSH, I can't imagine how much damage a NULL pointer dereference would cause. :D


I can't think of much that would be more frustrating.

Fortunately, not everyone thinks like you. Some people haven't forgotten the sense of words such as "generosity" and "freedom" because of the FSF brainwash.


If you were kidding/being sarcastic then, well, you got me :)

Oh no, I'm very serious.

[RiceMonster]

Thank God we don't have to rely on GPL people for SSH, I can't imagine how much damage a NULL pointer dereference would cause. :D

That's completely irrelevant to his/her argument.

[Bölvaður]

I don't think people who use BSD/MIT/X11 licenses are concerned about people making profit off their code. People make profit off Linux too, you know, so what's the difference? It's that people using those licenses want people to be able to do as they like with their code.

There is no difference in the way you are thinking about it, you can still do what ever you want with GPL2.0 code, but you will have to release the alterations you did to that code.
That in turn will make the original project better.
With BDS that does not happen as they do not publish the changes they did to the code, hence the original code will not improve by those means.

[Bachstelze]

That's completely irrelevant to his/her argument.

Is it really? Let me elaborate then. One of the reasons OpenSSH is distributed under a BSD license is because it allows manufacturers of network software and hardware to include it in their products without restriction. If it weren't (i.e. if it were GPL), they would just develop their own SSH implementations, and I would bet a lot of money that those implementations would be full of security holes. The fact that extremely skilled developers release their implementation of SSH under the BSD license ultimately makes the Internet more secure for everyone.

[RiceMonster]

There is no difference in the way you are thinking about it, you can still do what ever you want with GPL2.0 code, but you will have to release the alterations you did to that code.
That in turn will make the original project better.
With BDS that does not happen as they do not publish the changes they did to the code, hence the original code will not improve by those means.

As far as I know, BSD developers do have companies giving their code back to said projects.


Is it really? Let me elaborate then. One of the reasons OpenSSH is distributed under a BSD license is because it allows manufacturers of network software and hardware to include it in their products without restriction. If it weren't (i.e. if it were GPL), they would just develop their own SSH implementations, and I would bet a lot of money that those implementations would be full of security holes. The fact that extremely skilled developers release their implementation of SSH under the BSD license ultimately makes the Internet more secure for everyone.

Ok, I agree with you there. Your first argument about a NULL pointer, was more or less a low-blow, pointing out a vulnerability in the Linux kernel that didn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, rather than actually adressing the issue.

[Ozor Mox]

Let me see... the OpenSSH (and BSD in general) devs? Xorg? Apache? PHP? Thank God we don't have to rely on GPL people for SSH, I can't imagine how much damage a NULL pointer dereference would cause. :D

Well like I said, if they want to licence their projects like that then that is up to them. Clearly most open source projects consider the GPL a good licence for them though.


Fortunately, not everyone thinks like you. Some people haven't forgotten the sense of words such as "generosity" and "freedom" because of the FSF brainwash.

Oh yes I forgot, since I find the GPL a perfectly good licence, I also like it when everyone thinks the same as me and I never share any of my toys with anyone else. Give it a rest :roll:


Oh no, I'm very serious.

Ok well I guess it's good to know my sarcasm detector isn't malfunctioning!

I guess I just find it astonishing that you can say people who licence their work under the GPL are being "selfish". These people owe you nothing. You owe them something for making their software open source in my opinion. At the very least a cool, frosty beer if you use their project :)

[3rdalbum]

Is it really? Let me elaborate then. One of the reasons OpenSSH is distributed under a BSD license is because it allows manufacturers of network software and hardware to include it in their products without restriction. If it weren't (i.e. if it were GPL), they would just develop their own SSH implementations, and I would bet a lot of money that those implementations would be full of security holes. The fact that extremely skilled developers release their implementation of SSH under the BSD license ultimately makes the Internet more secure for everyone.

But many internet-connected devices already use Linux and other GPL software, and don't have any problems abiding by the license.

I license my projects under the GPL because I disagree with the idea of proprietary software, and I don't want the code that I've written to be used in a product whose license I don't agree with. In short, I don't want my code to hurt someone else's freedoms in the ways that traditional software licenses do.

The BSD and MIT folks don't agree with me, and I respect that.

Oh, incidentally, Microsoft does use some BSD code. Their command-line FTP program originated at Berkley.

[benmoran]

HymnToLife, I disagree with your viewpoint. For the people that do think alike, there are plenty of other licenses out there.

It all comes down to choice. People choose to use the GPL because they agree with it. Most of the people attributing code to GNU/Linux agree with it.

As a "hobby" coder, I feel it's the best choice. If I make something, I have no problems with anyone else using it. However if a company takes my code for free, I ask that they give back what changes they make. It's the most basic of give and take arrangements. There are not many valid reasons that I can see for a company not wanting to give back.

[Bachstelze]

As far as I know, BSD developers do have companies giving their code back to said projects.


Yes. However, to quote Theo, "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot have it back." That's why, by the way, I have much more respect for RMS than the Linux people. RMS recommends, when making modifications to free software, to always use the original license. Linux people, however, have no scruple wrapping the GPL around BSD code.

[Penguin Guy]

Who wants to give away their hard work for free, only to have it assimilated into some proprietary project and sold for profit? I can't think of much that would be more frustrating.
I, for one, do not feel the same way.

[Hyporeal]

That's why, by the way, I have much more respect for RMS than the Linux people. RMS recommends, when making modifications to free software, to always use the original license. Linux people, however, have no scrupple wrapping the GPL around BSD code.

So what? It's a valid, legal use of the code. The people who wrote the code gave their permission for anyone to wrap it in the GPL. Why would anyone have scruples about complying with the authors' explicit wishes? If you really support the BSD license then you have no right to be bitter when people fully take advantage of it.

[cmay]

By that logic, they'd already be using BSD code. Oh wait, Apple already is!
i think microsoft uses the BSD tcp/ip stack for windows XP also . i read it somewhere on wikipedia.

[Ozor Mox]

So what? It's a valid, legal use of the code. The people who wrote the code gave their permission for anyone to wrap it in the GPL. Why would anyone have scruples about complying with the authors' explicit wishes? If you really support the BSD license then you have no right to be bitter when people fully take advantage of it.

+Approximately 1 gillion

People who support the BSD licence but then complain about GPL projects taking the code are essentially undermining their own arguments for the BSD licence. Sure it's all very well saying "well people with any moral principles wouldn't just take and not give back"...well hello! That's what the GPL and other copylefts were created for. The BSD licence explicitly allows this behaviour, and was surely to be expected at some point in a successful project's life.

[Bachstelze]

So what? It's a valid, legal use of the code. The people who wrote the code gave their permission for anyone to wrap it in the GPL. Why would anyone have scruples about complying with the authors' explicit wishes? If you really support the BSD license then you have no right to be bitter when people fully take advantage of it.

Thanks, this proves my point exactly. The BSD license permits people to reuse the code as they wish. what they do with it is up to them, and to how they are willing for everyone to remain friends. Linux people say that this will permit companies to reuse it in proprietary software. That's true, but they're no better.

[Bachstelze]

Sure it's all very well saying "well people with any moral principles wouldn't just take and not give back"...well hello! That's what the GPL and other copylefts were created for.

No. The GPL was created to force people to give back. The BSD license allows everyone to act according to his moral principles. And what do we see? That Linux peple, who are always bragging about how they're so much better in that regard than everyone else, do in fact have none, which is kind of ironic. That's all. No bitterness, it only proves that Linux people only care about themselves.

[slakkie]

Thanks, this proves my point exactly. The BSD license permits people to reuse the code as they wish. what they do with it is up to them, and to how they are willing for everyone to remain friends. Linux people say that this will permit companies to reuse it in proprietary software. That's true, but they're no better.

It does not permit people to use it as they wish. The code is still covered by the BSD license and must therefor be accompanied with a BSD license. So you can have a GPL project which re-uses BSD code, but you must retain the BSD license and people can use the BSD licensed code without having to give back to the GPL project.

Using the BSD code without mentioning that the code is BSD is not allowed by the BSD license.

[Bachstelze]

It does not permit people to use it as they wish. The code is still covered by the BSD license and must therefor be accompanied with a BSD license. So you can have a GPL project which re-uses BSD code, but you must retain the BSD license and people can use the BSD licensed code without having to give back to the GPL project.

Using the BSD code without mentioning that the code is BSD is not allowed by the BSD license.

Right. By "as they wish", I meant "doing a modified version and releasing it under any license they wish". Of course they would have to keep the text of the BSD license, but the modified work would be under their license of choice. To get the original BSD code, one would have to get it from the original BSD project.

[Penguin Guy]

Linux people only care about themselves.
See post #1:

Please be respectful of others opinions:

I guess I just find it astonishing that you can say people who licence their work under the GPL are being "selfish". These people owe you nothing. You owe them something for making their software open source in my opinion. At the very least a cool, frosty beer if you use their project :)

[tom66]

The Apple (Darwin) Kernel is released open-source so that it gets the advantages of an open-source security model. If code were never contributed back then you would kind of get the Cedega of Wine. There would be no incentive to contribute code back, and Linux would lose commercial support provided by companies like Red Hat and Novell. Commercial organisations would just fork the codebase and make their own version of Linux. And they probably wouldn't make it open-source, because then another commercial organisation would take their investment.

[Simian Man]

Let's say you have two projects, one under the GPL and one under the BSD license. They each are working on related things and want to incorporate parts of each others code into their project. The person working on the GPL project can freely take the other projects code and incorporate it into his GPL project. But the person working on the BSD project cannot just use the GPLed code in his project as it would violate the GPL. So how can you say that the GPL is about freedom?

The GPL is a pragmatic license and it works well for many projects including the kernel. But don't pretend that it is all about freedom because it's not.

The GPL I think is overused just because it's what the kernel and GNU use.

[Bachstelze]

Let's say you have two projects, one under the GPL and one under the BSD license. They each are working on related things and want to incorporate parts of each others code into their project. The person working on the GPL project can freely take the other projects code and incorporate it into his GPL project. But the person working on the BSD project cannot just use the GPLed code in his project as it would violate the GPL.

Exactly. So if the people working on the GPL project really wanted for everyone to remain friends and to cooperate, they would at least, when taking code from the BSD projects, release their modifications under the BSD license (as RMS himself recommends), so they can be incorporated back in the original project.

But apparently, if they don't, that's fine. Why? Because they can. Well, I could ban Hyporeal and Ozor Mox from these forums, too. Why? Because I can. How good does that sound? ;)

[slakkie]

Right. By "as they wish", I meant "doing a modified version and releasing it under any license they wish". Of course they would have to keep the text of the BSD license, but the modified work would be under their license of choice. To get the original BSD code, one would have to get it from the original BSD project.

True, although I would expect that the modification will find its way back to the original project in case someone uses it in a GPL project. It would strike me as odd if someone uses BSD code and doesn't give it back, while he enforces others to give back to his project due to GPL. But he doesn't have to, that is right.

[Bachstelze]

It would strike me as odd if someone uses BSD code and doesn't give it back, while he enforces others to give back to his project due to GPL.

It happened not so long ago for wireless drivers.

[slakkie]

It happened not so long ago for wireless drivers.

I know bmcxxx cutter iirc.
But the problem there was that they didn't include the BSD license, they just used it as theirs. I read the whole thread/flamewar. Not a pretty sight.

[Ozor Mox]

Exactly. So if the people working on the GPL project really wanted for everyone to remain friends and to cooperate, they would at least, when taking code from the BSD projects, release their modifications under the BSD license (as RMS himself recommends), so they can be incorporated back in the original project.

Surely there must be a reason this doesn't happen then? If it were that easy, would developers of GPL projects really go "mwahaha, let's change the licence of this code so that our BSD minions may not copy our changes!" "Jolly good idea, let us bask in the evil glow of our plans"...

I mean if that does really happen then I'm going to look at open source developers in a whole new way...


But apparently, if they don't, that's fine. Why? Because they can. Well, I could ban Hyporeal and Ozor Mox from these forums, too. Why? Because I can. How good does that sound? ;)

Well that would be fine if the forum code of conduct had a rule stating:

* UF administrators (also known as God's Of All That Is And Ever Will Be) have the right to randomly ban people for no reason and with no prior warning. If you get banned in this manner, well, sucks to be you!

I don't think they have this rule though do they? Plus I am l33t h4x0r and I will steal all ur credit cards and sudo your life with my supa hi-speed connection if you ban me HymnToLife.

[Grenage]

I struggle to find issue with the GPL. If someone creates open software for free use, is it so unfair for them to want it to remain free and open?

[Bachstelze]

I struggle to find issue with the GPL. If someone creates open software for free use, is it so unfair for them to want it to remain free and open?

If someone creates open software, it will remain open, regardless of the license. It's just that if the code is released under a non-copyleft license and someone, somewhere, makes modifications to it and happens not to be a nice person, those modifications, and those modifications only will not be. The software will not magically become closed source.

[Grenage]

Ah, I see where you are coming from; that does seem inherently flawed.

[Bachstelze]

Ah, I see where you are coming from; that does seem inherently flawed.

Er, sorry, I forgot to mention "if the software is released under the BSD license or another non copyleft license". The GPL of course requires all modifications to be made open.

[Grenage]

I think I'm going to have to do some heavy reading on this subject, I'm struggling to get a handle.

[Bachstelze]

I think I'm going to have to do some heavy reading on this subject, I'm struggling to get a handle.

In a nutshell:

GPL: you can use the code provided that any modification you make is also released under the GPL.

BSD license: you can use the code in whatever way you like, provided that the text of the license appears somewhere (in the code if you're releasing it, or in the documentation if you don't).

[saulgoode]

If someone creates open software, it will remain open, regardless of the license. It's just that if the code is released under a non-copyleft license and someone, somewhere, makes modifications to it and happens not to be a nice person, those modifications, and those modifications only will not be.
Why would you consider someone to not be "a nice person" when they are abiding by the licensing? The copyright owner has specifically granted permission to do X, yet if someone chooses to actually do X then you would label them a bad person? Nonsense.

[Penguin Guy]

I think the biggest problem is that the general BSD idea never occurs to most people. I've been using Linux for almost a year ans it's only just occurred to me. If you told all the GPL people, I bet a few of them would go 'Oh yeah...'.

[Bachstelze]

Why would you consider someone to not be "a nice person" when they are abiding by the licensing? The copyright owner has specifically granted permission to do X, yet if someone chooses to actually do X then you would label them a bad person? Nonsense.

How does the fact that you have permission to do something make it a nice thing to do? It's easy to think of things that are perfectly legal, but really not nice.

[Grenage]

Cheers for that, after some reading the GPL licence does seem a little harsh. The LGPL seems much more reasonable.

[saulgoode]

How does the fact that you have permission to do something make it a nice thing to do? It's easy to think of things that are perfectly legal, but really not nice.
If you feel that adding conditions to licensing is "not nice", then why criticize the GPL for not permitting it?

[koenn]

Cheers for that, after some reading the GPL licence does seem a little harsh.
It's meant to serve a specific purpose, and serves it well.

[Bachstelze]

If you feel that adding conditions to licensing is "not nice", then why criticize the GPL for not permitting it?

Because not being nice is not a reason to be forbidden access to the code.

[koenn]

How does the fact that you have permission to do something make it a nice thing to do? It's easy to think of things that are perfectly legal, but really not nice.
it's not about legal. It's about one person giving an other person an explicit permission to do a certain thing, then complain when the other person actually does it.

[swoll1980]

If you feel that adding conditions to licensing is "not nice", then why criticize the GPL for not permitting it?

This made the most sense out of everything in this thread.

[Bachstelze]

it's not about legal. It's about one person giving an other person an explicit permission to do a certain thing, then complain when the other person actually does it.

Who complained? Not me, and not Theo. He just stated a fact: "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot get it back." That's a fact.

[koenn]

Surely there must be a reason this doesn't happen then? If it were that easy, would developers of GPL projects really go "mwahaha, let's change the licence of this code so that our BSD minions may not copy our changes!" "Jolly good idea, let us bask in the evil glow of our plans"...

I mean if that does really happen then I'm going to look at open source developers in a whole new way...

It's probably more like
- you're working on a program,
- the program's source code that you're working on is GPL'd
- you're re-uing some BSD-licensed code as basis for your modifications,
- in the process, you also fix a few issues in the BSD code itself

now, because all of this was 1 program, and it's already GPL, all of it (including the BSD-code you added and the improvenments you made to it) will have to be released under the GPL (if you realease at all. You can also just keep it for private use and not release anything)

[bryonak]

Translation:

"once the code has been GPL'ed, we don't want to get it back." That's a fact.

Just my addition to this inflammatory thread ;)

[koenn]

Who complained? Not me, and not Theo. He just stated a fact: "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot get it back." That's a fact.
And he is perfectly happy with that ?

[Bachstelze]

It's probably more like
- you're working on a program,
- the program's source code that you're working on is GPL'd
- you're re-uing some BSD-licensed code as basis for your modifications,
- in the process, you also fix a few issues in the BSD code itself

now, because all of this was 1 program, and it's already GPL, all of it (including the BSD-code you added and the improvenments you made to it) will have to be released under the GPL (if you realease at all. You can also just keep it for private use and not release anything)

Right. And you could also make a quick patch with just your improvements, release it under the BSD license and send it to the orginal developers. But who cares, right?

[koenn]

question:

If I re-use BSD-licensed code in a GPL'd program, my copy of that code gets GPL'd because its a modification to a GPL'd program, but the original code is still available under a BSD license, right ?

[Bachstelze]

And he is perfectly happy with that ?

Ask him. But what if he isn't? People don't have the right to be unhappy about something, in the GPL world?

[Bachstelze]

question:

If I re-use BSD-licensed code in a GPL'd program, my copy of that code gets GPL'd because its a modification to a GPL'd program, but the original code is still available under a BSD license, right ?

Of course. Only the author of the original code has the right to change its licensing terms.

[koenn]

Ask him. But what if he isn't? People don't have the right to be unhappy about something, in the GPL world?
I don't know, I don't live there.
I was just trying to establish whether "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot get it back." was really just 'stating a fact' rather than complaining about the fact that he can't get it back.

[koenn]

Of course. Only the author of the original code has the right to change its licensing terms.
Well, see, that's what I thought.

So it's only GPL'd modifications to BSD-licensed code that are problematic (from the BSD point of view)

But then what puzzles me is this:
a/ if modifications to BSD-licensed code end up in a proprietary program, the author never gets to see them, let alone use them,

b/ if modifications to BSD-licensed code end up under the GPL, the author can not use them (unless he continues to use the GPL, which he doesn't want)

I don't see how b/ is worse than a/. Practically, the result is quite the same. So why so much fuss about BSD code ending up in GPL'd programs, and no fuss about BSD code in proprietary programs ?

[moster]

GPL licence is protection from dirty copy-paste into proprietary. You do not have to be genius to figure that out. I am amazed how some people get into ubuntu forum staff and have so different view on some things.

[Chronon]

The simple solution would seem to be to license the modified code under GPL so you can use it in your GPL app and dual-license the modifications under BSD so it can be merged back into the source project.

It seems very short sighted to take material from a BSD project and improve it without giving it back to the maintainers of the code. Why duplicate development? While I'm sure you can find anecdotes of this happening I would really like to see statistics about this before believing that this is a generality.

[Brandel Valico]

okay let me see if I'm following this right. (I freely admit as a non-coder I have never read either code so I won't be surprised if I'm wrong here at all) Person A releases a code to say turn the background a random color every time but only the ROYGBIV colors of the spectrum under BSD then someone else adds the other colors to the code and releases it under the GPL. Which allows anyone else to say add negative colors as long as they also allow others to also change the code but requires them to share their changes if they release those changes.


But you feel that those people should just stay completely BSD? Which allows anyone to do whatever they want to do. Including not giving back at all. While the GPL does require them if they release it to the general public?

You make the argument that those people should give Microsoft the code under the BSD license knowing that they won't be re-releasing that code under the BSD code but will instead be re-releasing it as proprietary code for sale that you can't alter in anyway. For the betterment of everyone? Because it while allow those companies to charge the rest of us money to use the products they create as long as they note that the BSD part is still free but nothing else is nor will they allow you to alter their sections or heck normally even see them?

Not sure why but I don't see why that is a good idea for Everyone. Though I can see how this whole train of logic is a great idea for proprietary companies they get the benefits of the open source worlds initial product change a few things and then sell it without ever having to show how they changed it or allowing others to change their parts of the codes.

Honestly the GPL seems to benefit Everyone far more so then the BSD would. As it does actually require the code to remain open source.

[koenn]

I am amazed how some people get into ubuntu forum staff and have so different view on some things.
nah, the café would be too boring if we all agreed on everything.
Besides, how often do you get a chance to disagree with a mod and get away with it ?

[dragos240]

Well......... I wouldn't give our Linux code to micro$oft....... mainly because I believe all that they'd do would use it to make windows better, and perhaps add compiz. No open source :(. Also Linux is under the safe protection of the GPL! Go GPL!

[Bachstelze]

a/ if modifications to BSD-licensed code end up in a proprietary program, the author never gets to see them, let alone use them,

b/ if modifications to BSD-licensed code end up under the GPL, the author can not use them (unless he continues to use the GPL, which he doesn't want)

I don't see how b/ is worse than a/. Practically, the result is quite the same. So why so much fuss about BSD code ending up in GPL'd programs, and no fuss about BSD code in proprietary programs ?

It is not worse from a "technical" point of view, but from a "community" (I don't find a better word) one. Remember this post?


Let's say you have two projects, one under the GPL and one under the BSD license. They each are working on related things and want to incorporate parts of each others code into their project.

This could be, basically, the BSD family of kernels (Open/Net/Free) on one side, and Linux on the other. The BSD developers do share their code (not only with Linux, but with everyone else too, but it's Linux that interest us here). Basically, they play their part in maintaining a friendly community on both sides. The Linux developers, however, do not (for the most part). Yes, I know the GPL requires them to release their files under it in the Linux tree. However, it wouldn't be hard, when they make some improvements to a file that could be used in BSD, to make a quick patch, license it under the BSD license, and send it to the BSD developers. And everyone would remain friends.

Forget about the companies taking code and releasing it closed source and never contributing back (they're not worthy of your time anyway), and tell me: wouldn't it be better for everyone if people would maintain a friendly community? I think so.

[Hyporeal]

It seems very short sighted to take material from a BSD project and improve it without giving it back to the maintainers of the code.

The original post in this thread (which was praised by BSD supporters) argued that Apple and Microsoft should take BSD code, modify it, and give nothing back. A BSD supporter argued that SSH-compliant devices should take BSD code, modify it, and give nothing back because it improves reliability. Perhaps it does seem shortsighted, but it's something that the BSD allows and something that its supporters welcome. The issue they have with the GPL appears to be personal.

[moster]

nah, the café would be too boring if we all agreed on everything.
Besides, how often do you get a chance to disagree with a mod and get away with it ?

Wait little more, maybe he is not looking. :) Few days ago he gave me infraction point for being too sarcastic and he was sarcastic at begining of this thread. I do not care, everyone will pay for his doing in the end :)

and yes, it is no good that we all agree on everything.. I like to hear different views, some of them are quite amusing :D

[Chronon]

The original post in this thread (which was praised by BSD supporters) argued that Apple and Microsoft should take BSD code, modify it, and give nothing back. A BSD supporter argued that SSH-compliant devices should take BSD code, modify it, and give nothing back because it improves reliability. Perhaps it does seem shortsighted, but it's something that the BSD allows and something that its supporters welcome. The issue they have with the GPL appears to be personal.

I understand that it's just as legitimate as what proprietary projects do. I'm not saying there's any violation and I'm not suggesting that there's something wrong with GPL or that licensing for GNU/Linux needs to change.

I'm only saying that if your application uses a piece of code from a BSD project that is actively developed, it seems to serve your future interests to give your changes back to that project.

[Bachstelze]

The original post in this thread (which was praised by BSD supporters) argued that Apple and Microsoft should take BSD code, modify it, and give nothing back. A BSD supporter argued that SSH-compliant devices should take BSD code, modify it, and give nothing back because it improves reliability. Perhaps it does seem shortsighted, but it's something that the BSD allows and something that its supporters welcome. The issue they have with the GPL appears to be personal.

Er, what? When did I say "should"? Please stop deforming my words. Of course they should give back. But what if they don't want to? Should we let millions of users browse the web with insecure devices?

[saulgoode]

It seems very short sighted to take material from a BSD project and improve it without giving it back to the maintainers of the code. Why duplicate development? While I'm sure you can find anecdotes of this happening I would really like to see statistics about this before believing that this is a generality.
What you describe is typically how such things transpire; indeed it is how the case cited earlier of the Ath5k wireless modem dispute was eventually resolved.

The Software Freedom Law Center's announcement from the OpenBSD Journal (http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070927192354):

Ultimately, all the copyright holders of the Linux ath5k-driver code, derived from ar5k, have been contacted and have agreed to license their changes under the ISC license, thus allowing improvements to be re-incorporated into OpenBSD.

The SFLC has also produced a document (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html) with recommendations on how to include permissively-licensed code in a GPLed project.

[Penguin Guy]

BSD:
License: Do what you like with the code.
Result: More programs use the code than GPL equivalent.

BSD prefers it if you give it the changes you make, it doesn't care if people don't.



GPL:
License: You must give us the changes you make.
Result: Better code than BSD equivalent.



Putting a program under both BSD and GPL is the same as putting it under just BSD.

[lethalfang]

I don't like the fact that Apple takes BSD for free, makes a product based on BSD, and then in turn restrict the BSD-based OS to such a terrible extent that it is only allowed to be installed in an Apple computer.

[Bachstelze]

BSD:
License: Do what you like with the code.


Not true. The BSD license requires that you keep the copyright notice, list of conditions, and warranty disclaimer.



GPL:[/B]
License: You must give us the changes you make.

That's a clumsy way to put it. You have to release them under the GPL (if you decide to release them at all), not give them to someone in particular.



Result: Better code than BSD equivalent.


No. It's the developer's skill that makes good code, not the license he releases it under.

[koenn]

I
Forget about the companies taking code and releasing it closed source and never contributing back (they're not worthy of your time anyway), and tell me: wouldn't it be better for everyone if people would maintain a friendly community? I think so.
OK, point taken, but judging from a copuple of recent posts in this thread (saulgoode) that already seems to be the recommended modus operandi.


Except for 'the linux guys' who just take and don't care ...
what is it with these guys? won't play nice with GNU, won't play nice with BSD, ...

[JoshuaRL]

Er, what? When did I say "should"? Please stop deforming my words. Of course they should give back. But what if they don't want to? Should we let millions of users browse the web with insecure devices?

But that's what happens with proprietary code anyway. Just letting the Code Barons come in and steal whatever they want won't stop that. Honestly, that's one of the biggest things that open source has going for it, besides the speed of development and the positive community. When you start giving away your work without any other coders getting the benefit of what's done on it, open source's own higher ground starts to erode.

All of the licenses are good for their respective places. Nothing is perfect for everything. Honestly I feel that the BSD license is too permissive in some situations, especially considering all of the proprietary code houses willing and able to copy-paste-rebrand. (Anyone hear of ffmpeg clones?)

Personally I think it's better to stick with the license the base code was written in, just makes more sense for the law and good morals. But thinking that pushing a patch will always be accepted and is the answer to moving code forward is a little misleading. That's why forks happen.

[zboot]

This who argument seems to really be one of relative morality.

Essentially the argument seems to be as follows:

GPLed code is "bad" and "selfish" because once released under GPL the code cannot be used in a proprietary application or in any way anyone else wants (and by any way anyone else wants = ways NOT allowed by GPL).

The rationale here is that the whole GNU/Linux and GPL thing is to make software free and by releasing software under a "restrictive" license such as GPL, it is not free and thus people who release GPLed code while arguing for free software are hypocrites.

Here is the problem with that argument. Proprietary code is not free. The only way to guarantee code remains free is to ensure that anyone who modifies the code and releases it must keep it free. If you allow exceptions to that, then you are potentially creating the possibility where a brach of code becomes closed.

In an ideal world, we could count on everyone to be "nice" and maintain the wishes of the original coder. In real life, that is not the case. And so, in order to make sure the code is free, we must restrict the rights of people who use the code.

I think that probably sums up the problem here. GPL isn't about freedom of coders, it is about the freedom of code. Those two are quite differnt. Coders, by being human are capricious in nature. Code, by being inanimate, is not. If we want to protect code, then we must put limits on the coders.

These are quite nuanced definitions. (Not to really inject any political angst here) but it is like the argument against new hate crime legislation - some people argue that every crime is a hate crime. The problem with their argument is that they are selectively using one definition of hate crime while ignoring what it really means in the context of the law. The reason the argument even occurs is because "hate crime" has become the generic catch-all term used to describe specific bias related crime. In the same manner here, we have words and concepts such as freedom with in different contexts can have specific and different meanings. So, when people who take one meaning attempt to apply it where it means something else, you are bound to have conflict. (for example, in this case, freedom of coders vs freedom of code)

[shadylookin]

Well I guess the question is what's our code? Ubuntu is a linux based os so the vast majority of code isn't ours but rather it came from somewhere else under a variety of licenses.

Microsoft/others could be like ubuntu and use foss. All they would have to do is abided by the open source license of the software that they use.

However I'm guessing you just want a gpl vs bsd debate. In which case once upon a time the bsd license was incompatible with the gpl. They changed it so that it was. If they didn't want their code to be incorporated into gpl licensed programs then they shouldn't have changed the license for that specific reason.

Besides even if they wanted to most gpl projects can't ever be relicensed to bsd. They have so many contributors that released under the gpl there's no possible way they could ever break free. The kernel team couldn't even upgrade to gplv3 assuming they wanted to(which apparently they don't)

If people who use the bsd license don't like their plot in life they should consider switching licenses. CDDL seems like a pretty generous compromise. If someone modifies YOUR code then they have to post it. If they add to it then they can license their code however they want. Plus it can't be used in gpl applications so you don't have to worry about gpl people ninjaing your code and re-licensing it under the viral gpl so that you can't get it back.

[t0p]

Who complained? Not me, and not Theo. He just stated a fact: "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot get it back." That's a fact.

What on earth are you talking about? Only the modified code would be GPLed. The original code is still under BSD license.

If I download BSD-licensed code from your ftp site, modify it and license that modified code as GPL, that doesn't affect your original code. I can't insist that your original code must also be relicensed GPL. Only my code is affected. This is all thoroughly in the spirit of the BSD.

[Bachstelze]

If people who use the bsd license don't like their plot in life they should consider switching licenses.

Oh yeah, great idea, let's switch licenses for software that dates back to the 70's. Getting approval from every contributor will be soooo much fun!

[phrostbyte]

Yes. However, to quote Theo, "once the code has been GPL'ed, we cannot have it back." That's why, by the way, I have much more respect for RMS than the Linux people. RMS recommends, when making modifications to free software, to always use the original license. Linux people, however, have no scruple wrapping the GPL around BSD code.

And this is exactly why BSD is a terrible license.

[Penguin Guy]

Not true. The BSD license requires that you keep the copyright notice, list of conditions, and warranty disclaimer.
I was trying to put it simply.



That's a clumsy way to put it. You have to release them under the GPL (if you decide to release them at all), not give them to someone in particular.
'give to GPL' - 'release under GPL', same thing IMO.



No. It's the developer's skill that makes good code, not the license he releases it under.
GPL gets the best bits of BSD and adds onto them. Therefore surely GPL must have better code?

[phrostbyte]

Oh yeah, great idea, let's switch licenses for software that dates back to the 70's. Getting approval from every contributor will be soooo much fun!

You don't need approval to change from BSD to GPL, only in reverse.

[shadylookin]

Oh yeah, great idea, let's switch licenses for software that dates back to the 70's. Getting approval from every contributor will be soooo much fun!

Well they've modified it before(to make it gpl compatible). Not that it matters you can incorporate BSD code into CDDL code so there's no issue with relicensing. Unlike with the gpl licensed codebase which would take every contributor's permission unless they licensed it over to the project.

If it's ok for proprietary developers to take bsd code why is it mean for gplers to take it? If it's mean for both then why license it under the bsd license?

[Bachstelze]

You don't need approval to change from BSD to GPL, only in reverse.

Wrong.

[Bachstelze]

Well they've modified it before(to make it gpl compatible).

They modified the license, but code that was released under the old version remained licensed under the old version (unnless the copyright owner agreed to change it).


Not that it matters you can incorporate BSD code into CDDL code so there's no issue with relicensing.

You can incorporate BSD code into CDDL, but you can't change its licensing terms. The code will still be licensed under the BSD license.


If it's ok for proprietary developers to take bsd code why is it mean for gplers to take it? If it's mean for both then why license it under the bsd license?

/facepalm

[koenn]

you are on a linux forum. In such a place, saying linux and the gpl is selfish is flamebait.
+1

[Lavaeagle]

If Microsoft or Apple wanted the Linux source code, and most likely out of everyone know it's source code is out there.

But there is the problem of integration, .exe and .deb just from that alot of change would have to occur. Taking ideas from linux I don't think would be that terrible, but would create a lot better of an OS. Especially if they made a community like this one.

How are the Linux users selfish? The admins and the developers are the real owners of the source code, if they wanted to do that why didn't they?

I'd be find seeing new things coming out from Windows other than the same old same old, I would still be on Ubuntu because the community makes up a huge part of it.

@Hymn grow up you're an admin.

[Bachstelze]

How are the Linux users selfish?

Linux users aren't. Linux developers, at least some of them, are (and apparently, this is beginning to change, which is certainly reason to celebrate).

[RiceMonster]

But there is the problem of integration, .exe and .deb just from that alot of change would have to occur.

.exe and .deb are different things. .deb is a software package, where as .exe is an executable format for windows/dos. Also, please keep in mind that .deb is not a Linux format, it's an apt format. Most linux distros do not use .deb.

[shadylookin]

They modified the license, but code that was released under the old version remained licensed under the old version (unnless the copyright owner agreed to change it).



You can incorporate BSD code into CDDL, but you can't change its licensing terms. The code will still be licensed under the BSD license.

The project as a whole will be relicensed. Like when the linux team takes bsd code the work as a whole will be under the gpl. It can't stop whats already been taken, but it can prevent any future additions from being incorporated into the gpl.




/facepalm

It's quite clear there's a handful of bsd license fans that are annoyed by the fact that people can take their code and use it in a gpl program. Yet they don't understand that letting people take their code and essentially do what they please with it is the entire point of the bsd license. My simple plea is that if they don't like the implications of their license perhaps they should reconsider using it.

[Bachstelze]

It's quite clear there's a handful of bsd license fans that are annoyed by the fact that people can take their code and use it in a gpl program. Yet they don't understand that letting people take their code and essentially do what they please with it is the entire point of the bsd license. My simple plea is that if they don't like the implications of their license perhaps they should reconsider using it.

No, I'm simply annoyed by the fact that I already responded to that argument at least three times.

[Perfect Storm]

The thread is now temporarily closed for review and for cooldown.

[bodhi.zazen]

This thread has been reviewed and I Jailed some posts with the intention of re-opening this thread.

As a reminder to EVERYONE - Please keep the conversation on topic and disagree in a more agreeable manor and without personal attacks.

[majamba]

the gpl licence doesn't stop them from using our code, microsoft can use it but if they made changes they must always publish thier changes to the original code it is open and freedom

[bodyharvester]

have they asked? does any body know?

[tjoff]

In this post I will just cite long-time FreeBSD developer Poul-Henning Kamp (from http://people.freebsd.org/~phk):

"
Beerware, am I really serious ?

Yes.

(I have included the text of the beerware license below so you can see what this is about.)

I have had it with lawyers trying to interpret freedom. If I write software which I intend to give away, I don't want to have to stick several pages of legalese on it to make sure nobody exploits it or any such meta-bable. If I have decided that I'll give away some code I've written, I going to give it away, period, none of this "unless it is worth a million to somebody" rubbish.

I think the GNU license is a joke, it fights the capitalism it so much is against with their own tools, and no company is ever going to risk any kind of proximity to so many so vague statements assembled in a license.

I think the BSD-lite license, which most of the FreeBSD people use now is pretty much OK, but I'm going to stick to my beerware license anyway.

And quite frankly, I think I have gotten much more out of my beerware license than most people have from their GNU or BSD licenses. Cisco use my password scrambler and netscape used my malloc implementation, and I know of a couple of other companies that use it too, but which for reasons I can understand doesn't want to disclose this to the public.

I do like to hear what people is using my code for though, but I have deliberately not made that a requirement, if people don't want me to know, they shouldn't have to tell me.

/*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
* <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
* this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return Poul-Henning Kamp
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/

"

[Bachstelze]

There's also the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).

[-=hazard=-]

So, why Don't we Give Microsoft our Code?

Every one can have it... I even bet that windows have it, but what reasons do they have to make modifications and improvement and then release it under gpl for free? We already know that they are just a brunch of commercial developers. And who said that linux need to be improved by microsoft?! They first need to improve their last stable windows cos it sucks!

[koenn]

So we got some brilliant operating system thing here called Linux. Now if we allowed people to use our code freely (without releasing their modified version to the public), companies like Microsoft and Apple would then make super-brilliant operating system things. This is good, is it not? It has no negative effect on Linux and since anyone can use our code, it may mean a lot of new OSs. A lot of new OSs, in turn, means more competition ,and lower prices. For those who want open source software, Linux isn't going to disappear is it?

Operating systems don't matter that much anymore these days. You can grab a perfectly good operating system of the internet these days, and all they are good for is to make it easy for programs to run on computer hardware.

So what companies do is : grap an operating system, and use that as a platform for their applications. Oracle does that with its databases, middleware en applications, Google does that, Apple does that, ...;


In the process, they'll sometimes have to modify the OS. Those modifications can be added to the original OS, so that improves as well.

This is a win-win on several levels : software vendors have control over what the underlying OS does so their applications can perform better, they probably save a few bucks that they can spend on the development of more or better applications, the OS improves 'automatically' - so in stead of just "more operating systems" you end up with what really matters : more and better functionality on your computer.


At some point, the same will happen with other 'infrastructure' software such as databases, development tools, hypervisors, all sorts of frameworks, all kinds of software that provides mechanisms that vendors can use to build applications, services.... reinforcing this whole trend. More win-win, even more and better functionality on your computer.

Who cares about yet another operating system then ?

The good thing about the GPL is that it can drive this trend : it ensures that GPL'd source code remains GPL'd and that whatever builds on it, is also GPL'd, so more and more software will, eventually , be available under a free license, and will continue to be available and improve long after the guy/project/company that originally wrote it have died, disbanded; or gone out of business.
Other free licences can have somewhat of the same effect, but it's actually the 'viral' nature of GPL that practically guarantees it.

[shadylookin]

In this post I will just cite long-time FreeBSD developer Poul-Henning Kamp (from http://people.freebsd.org/~phk):

"
Beerware, am I really serious ?

Yes.

(I have included the text of the beerware license below so you can see what this is about.)

I have had it with lawyers trying to interpret freedom. If I write software which I intend to give away, I don't want to have to stick several pages of legalese on it to make sure nobody exploits it or any such meta-bable. If I have decided that I'll give away some code I've written, I going to give it away, period, none of this "unless it is worth a million to somebody" rubbish.

I think the GNU license is a joke, it fights the capitalism it so much is against with their own tools, and no company is ever going to risk any kind of proximity to so many so vague statements assembled in a license.

I think the BSD-lite license, which most of the FreeBSD people use now is pretty much OK, but I'm going to stick to my beerware license anyway.

And quite frankly, I think I have gotten much more out of my beerware license than most people have from their GNU or BSD licenses. Cisco use my password scrambler and netscape used my malloc implementation, and I know of a couple of other companies that use it too, but which for reasons I can understand doesn't want to disclose this to the public.

I do like to hear what people is using my code for though, but I have deliberately not made that a requirement, if people don't want me to know, they shouldn't have to tell me.

/*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
* <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
* can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think
* this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return Poul-Henning Kamp
* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/

"

The gpl isn't anti-capitalism it specifically allows you to sell the software. Plenty of large companies contribute to gpl licensed products.

All code authors should license their code under whatever they see fit and people should respect(or at least abided by) their decision on how it should be licensed. Sadly though I think a lot of people make this into a philosophical debate when it doesn't necessarily need to be one.

There's plenty of practical reasons for the various open source licenses. A bsd license is good when you want something to become a standard. The lgpl is good for libraries. The gpl is good when you don't want a company to make your software proprietary and contribute nothing back. The cddl license is good when you don't want the linux kernel team taking the zfs filesystem :lolflag:

[kk0sse54]

Sadly though I think a lot of people make this into a philosophical debate when it doesn't necessarily need to be one.


Isn't philosophical differences one of the core reason behind having different licenses?

[shadylookin]

Isn't philosophical differences one of the core reason behind having different licenses?

Well at the core of open source licenses is their open souceness so at the end of the day the philosophical differences are negligible in my opinion. I think they should look at the practical side of things and see what each license has to offer and select the one they think works best for the project.

[koenn]

Well at the core of open source licenses is their open souceness ....
If you actually read the definition of 'open source', or the requirements for being considered an open source license, ... you'll see that this is not true.

[shadylookin]

If you actually read the definition of 'open source', or the requirements for being considered an open source license, ... you'll see that this is not true.

I'm pretty sure it is. There are no closed source open source licenses.

[kk0sse54]

I'm pretty sure it is. There are no closed source open source licenses.

In a general sense yes, but open Source means different things to different people i.e. FSF vs. Open Source Movement

[.Maleficus.]

No. The GPL was created to force people to give back. The BSD license allows everyone to act according to his moral principles. And what do we see? That Linux peple, who are always bragging about how they're so much better in that regard than everyone else, do in fact have none, which is kind of ironic. That's all. No bitterness, it only proves that Linux people only care about themselves.
Just stopping in to say this is a great post. BSD >>>>>> GPL

[shadylookin]

In a general sense yes, but open Source means different things to different people i.e. FSF vs. Open Source Movement

Yes fsf thinks it's about freedom and the open source movement thinks it's about an alternative software engineering model to close source.

However I feel that outside of a very vocal minority most people couldn't care less about proprietary vs open source let alone open source license A vs open source license B.

No one is going to use crap software because their philosophical ideas are sound(well a few might). So I believe an open source project is best served by choosing a license that fits best with what they're trying to accomplish.

[WatchingThePain]

Why don't Microsoft give up their code?, who knows maybe someone might want it.

[MarcusW]

No. The GPL was created to force people to give back. The BSD license allows everyone to act according to his moral principles. And what do we see? That Linux peple, who are always bragging about how they're so much better in that regard than everyone else, do in fact have none, which is kind of ironic. That's all. No bitterness, it only proves that Linux people only care about themselves.

It sounds like you really like the BSD license for letting people do pretty much whatever they want with the code, and then you get all mad because they don't do what YOU want them to do. The core principal of the BSD license is pretty admirable, I'll give you that but this is kinda like free speech, but not for those with the wrong opinion. (bad comparison I know, and no offense intended)

I can see how this means that GPL people only really contribute to GPL people. I can't see how this has anything to do with Linux people only caring about Linux people, since most GPL'd software is available for most operating systems.

Since people don't respect the "please do the right thing"-undertone in the BSD license, isn't GPL the perfect solution? ;)

Keep in mind I am new in this discussion, so if my criticism is based on some weird misunderstanding I do apologize.

[Tibuda]

Why don't Microsoft give up their code?, who knows maybe someone might want it.

I have not read the whole thread, but this is the best answer to the OP so far.

[kk0sse54]

It sounds like you really like the BSD license for letting people do pretty much whatever they want with the code, and then you get all mad because they don't do what YOU want them to do.........
Since people don't respect the "please do the right thing"-undertone in the BSD license, isn't GPL the perfect solution? ;)


This response applies to not only this quote but a bunch of responses in this thread.

You're taking this whole thing thing about *BSD users complaining about the restrictions of the GPL way out of context. The original referenced quote by Theo de Raadt was


GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.

The actual arguing point is that most people tend to say the greatest flaw with the BSD license is that proprietary companies steal the code without anything in return. On the contrary companies like Apple which have used significant amounts of BSD code have actual contributed back in multiple ways. Meanwhile linux users take BSD code and wrap it in the GPL thus locking it in. The GPL is supposed to give you freedom but it forces everyone to use it's own license.

We aren't mad that people can do whatever they want with our code but when you espouse supposed freedom why do you lock in and force other people to use your license thus rendering your code incompatible. Don't we all want to spread and further quality open source? Isn't Linux is all about community and sharing code?

[Bachstelze]

Since people don't respect the "please do the right thing"-undertone in the BSD license, isn't GPL the perfect solution? ;)

No, for a variety of reasons that I've already discussed in this thread, in an nutshell:

1. BSD developers are not going to stop doing what they believe is the right thing because some people abuse it.

2. Even if they wanted to, changing the licensig terms of code that dates back to the 70's would be an impossible task.

[jonian_g]

All this debate is pointless.

Coders can use whatever license they want.

Also this thread belongs to the cafe. It is another GPL vs BSD thread with a different title.

[Bachstelze]

Also this thread belongs to the cafe. It is another GPL vs BSD thread with a different title.

And where is it right now?

[jonian_g]

And where is it right now?

My mistake. My intention was to say Recurring Discussions.

But it seems you are to passionate about the subject that you forgot where it belongs.

[jonian_g]

Also this thread was reopened with the intention to be on topic. Which is not the case. So it should be closed too.


This thread has been reviewed and I Jailed some posts with the intention of re-opening this thread.

As a reminder to EVERYONE - Please keep the conversation on topic and disagree in a more agreeable manor and without personal attacks.

[cariboo]

@jonian_g

Please try not to attempt to be a moderator, it won't work. This is the correct place for the thread, and it is staying on topic.

[jonian_g]

@jonian_g

Please try not to attempt to be a moderator, it won't work. This is the correct place for the thread, and it is staying on topic.

I'm not trying to be a moderator.

I'm just saying that moderators should act like ones. The thread is off topic and everyone sees that and a moderator is helping to take that direction.

But, do what ever you want.<snip>.

[bodhi.zazen]

With that I am going to close this thread now for staff review. There were some interesting points and the discussion was enlightening.

I am not sure if there is much point in continuing the discussion as it is starting to get repetitive.

[bapoumba]

The thread will remain closed.

May all learn from it, see you next time in another thread that will be able to remain open :)