RE: [TCLUG:17728] Motif has gone opensource!

["Schlough, Mark" <Mark.Schlough@mortgage.wellsFargo.COM>]

> > > 
> > > This, in general, prevents a company from using code to their own
> > > advantage and not contributing back to the community. Which *can*
> happen
> > > with BSD-style licenses. Examples are endless: Solaris, the Strongarm
> web
> > > server, I believe even Windows contains BSD code (ping, etc)! These
> > > companies give nothing back, and that sucks.
> > 
> > This is exaclty the point of the BSD license.  If I write some code and
> I GPL
> > it, it's not "free" because Big Company X can't use it "freely" in their
> proprietary program.
> 
	I don't know this but I'm just asking....

	Could a company write a proprietary program that uses GPL'd code in
this way:
	There are proprietary components and GPL'd components.  The
proprietary stuff is distributed in one tarball and the GPL'd in another.
And the install program assembles them into a hybrid system.  (Sort of like
bricks and mortar... Proprietary Bricks and GPL'd mortar...together they
make the structure)

>   It's kind of a paradox: The GPL doesn't let you make your code
> > free as it limits people to having to keep it free.  Make sense?  Maybe
> not,
> > but that's what I think.  IMHO, "Free" means no strings attached.  Every
> license
> > _except_ the BSD license have such strings.
> 
	Free in the GPL sense means "free from being locked up"
	Free in the BSD sense means "you are free to lock it up if you wish"

	Another way of putting it is this:

	GPL: the code is free
	BSD: the coder is free