Why should derived work have limitations placed on the owner of the derived works?

It's up to developer of the original work to decide which type of behavior to allow based on the license.

The GPL only limits the freedom of the developer borrowing the original work if they decide to take the option of distributing the work, whether it was modified or not.

Another question would be, why should the developer who borrowed someone else's work consider himself the owner if he simply modifies it?

Or, another way to state it, why should a developer allow another developer to take ownership of his work when he's already allowed that other developer to benefit from it by allowing that other developer to access the work, to study the work, to use the work, and to modify the work to fit a need? Now, the other developer also wants ownership of it because of a modification that he was allowed to make? For the original developer's openness, in reciprocation the other developer wants to lock out the original developer, and all other developers, from modifications to the work that the original developer might find useful?

It all depends on the type of behavior the original developer wants to allow by the license he chooses. If he wants to encourage selfishness, he can choose the BSD, if wants to encourage reciprocity he can choose the GPL.

It stifles the ability of people to take well tested code and build commercial applications with it.

I suspect this is an unfounded belief. I do find examples of GPL'd works successfully being built as commercial applications while continuing under the GPL. Please cite actual examples of how this supposed stifling process has affected actual applications if the license requires that the freedom to access modified changes continue to be passed on to later developers as under the GPL. Otherwise, your assertion remains a myth.

If a developer prefers to close source code that they take so that it will now have a Proprietary license, they only have to find another developer willing to provide the code to them on a charity basis, such as under the BSD, where there is no requirement for reciprocity and the charity recipient can treat the code given to them as their own by locking out the original developer and later developers from evolving their modifications. Of course, now that the code is closed, the benefits of Open Source can no longer be applied to the closed modifications since other Open Source developers cannot view, test, or improve the modified code any longer.

Contrary to GPL zealot indoctrination, not ALL software will be developed for free.

I haven't heard or read that claim and couldn't find examples. Is this further myth making? Please provide examples, as I would be interested to read their reasoning on why they expect that all software will be developed for free. I may respond back to them with additional queries on the logic of that position.

BSD people get this, and would rather that commercial software use well tested, robust code for the parts of the software that are non-industry specific, and spend their time focused writing on software that DOESN'T already exist.

I'm not sure as to why commercial software is being discussed on a topic regarding the characteristics of Open Source and Free Software licenses, since commercial applications can be of just about any license, whether BSD, GPL or Proprietary.

Is the assumption that commercial software should always be under a Proprietary license? And, is a Proprietary licensed commercial software supposed to be in some way a superior product? If that is the case, then shouldn't commercial software always rely on Proprietary licensed commercial software components to make the best product?

I don't follow that assumption myself since my belief is that Proprietary licensed code, if closed source, is less likely to be as well tested and as well built as a popular Open Source equivalent over time, and therefore Open Source code should always be the norm for all applications, including commercial software.

BSD people get this, and would rather that commercial software use well tested, robust code for the parts of the software that are non-industry specific

Commercial software can use BSD, GPL, or Proprietary licensed code for that, assuming that Proprietary licensed code can also be as equally well tested and robust as popular Open Source code over time.

and spend their time focused writing on software that DOESN'T already exist.

Most software is written because a variation that is needed doesn't exist. There are of course many clones as people try to learn how to make an application for a particular platform or prefer one under a particular license depending on the behavior they want to allow.

As the BSD license is not as much used as the GPL license, I don't see as much software functionality created under the BSD that doesn't already exist in some form under another license, whether Open Source, Free Software or Proprietary. For example, the comparison with GPL and BSD is 10 to 1.

http://freecode.com/tags/gnu-general-public-license-gpl

http://freecode.com/tags/bsd

Perhaps developers who prefer the other licenses, such as the GPL or a Proprietary license, simply take the BSD code and re-license it? I don't know. But, since the BSD allows this, maybe the original BSD code doesn't receive the necessary evolutionar feedback to maintain parity with the GPL'd or Proprietary licensed modifications?

Since the BSD allows the developer the option to close the code, a developer who instead prefers the reciprocity of the GPL might re-license their changes to allow the code to evolve in a well tested and robust Open Source form as long as the modifying developers choose the option to distribute the derived work. But, that's just supposition, as I don't know why fewer people use the BSD in the first place except that more people may prefer the source code reciprocity of the GPL as opposed to the source code charity of the BSD and the selfishness that the BSD allows in later developers. More developers may instinctively sense the fair play that the GPL allows and are drawn to it and are not as inclined towards charity as allowed by the BSD.

= 9J =

Not really. It's just incomplete.

The GPL and the BSD each allow an option to restrict freedom.

IF:
Developer B has modified some code that was under the GPL.

THEN:
The GPL restricts Developer A from restricting the freedom of other developers to access, to use, and to modify the code to which Developer A had the freedom to access, to use, and to modify from Developer B's modification. This restriction is only IF Developer A chooses the option to distribute the derived changes.

IF:
Developer B has modified some code and kept it under the BSD.

THEN:
The BSD allows Developer A the option to restrict the freedom of other developers to access, to use, and to modify the code to which Developer A had the freedom to access, to use, and to modify from Developer B's modification.

It is up to the original developer to decide which behavior to allow by choosing which type of restriction to allow based on the license.

= 9J =

The original code released is still free for anyone to do anything with.

This is true for GPL and BSD.

Derived works are not free, that is up to the author of the derived works.>

This is true for the BSD in that it allows the developer who modifies someone else's work to restrict the freedom of other developers, including the original developer, to access and modify to the derived work even if it is distributed.

The GPL would restrict the freedom of the developer from restricting the freedom of other developers to access and modify the derived work for further evolution if the derived work is distributed.

Even if they close THEIR works, the originals they leverage are still available for others.

Both the BSD and the GPL allow the freedom to access and modify the original work assuming it is still available for access in its original form somewhere. Yes, the BSD does allow a developer to restrict the freedom of other developers, including the original developer, to access and modify the derived work that was originally BSD'd even if the derived work is distributed.

= 9J =

And the GPL is NOT free.

GPL'd software is...

"Free software, software libre or libre software [...] that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with restrictions that only ensure that further recipients have the same rights under which it was obtained and that manufacturers of consumer products incorporating free software provide the software as source code. The word free in the term free software refers to freedom (liberty) and is not at all related to monetary cost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

It contains restrictions on what others can do with the code you release (i.e., they can't close it).

That is correct. The GPL and the BSD each allow an option to restrict freedom.

For GPL:
If the developer who freely chooses to modify someone else's GPL'd work takes the option to distribute the derived work, then that developer is restricted from restricting other developers from the same freedom to freely choose to access and modify his derived work so that they and everyone else, including the original developer and the modifier, may contribute to and benefit from generations of evolving code changes.

For BSD:
If the developer who freely chooses to modify someone else's BSD'd work takes the option to restrict the freedom of other developers to access and modify his derivation of the existing code, even if he takes the option to distribute the derived work, then those other developers don't have the freedom of choice to access or freedom of choice to modify his derived changes and are restricted from contributing to and benefiting from generations of evolving code changes from that derived work.

It is up to the original developer to decide which behavior to allow by choosing which type of restriction to allow based on the license.

= 9J =

No such thing. The first amendment only says the government (i.e., OTHERS) can't restrict your freedom of speech.

And, not only others like the Federal Government, but also others like State Goverments, County Governments, and City Governments. Hopefully a few concrete examples is more illustrative than the more abstracted "others".

As a private citizen

Yes, even you are restricted in your freedom to restrict the freedom of others. In turn, you are more free as the same restriction applies to others in that they cannot restrict your freedom. I can tell this is difficult to absorb, but the net result is that we are more free.

I have every right to kick you off my property,

Correct, the property is yours and I am restricted from encroaching on it, giving you more freedom on your own property. Consequently, you are restricted from encroaching on my property, providing me more freedom on my own property. I'm hoping you see the pattern in this.

shout over you

Yes, you can because I'm restricted from punching you to stop the shouting. The restriction on my behavior, is your freedom to express your mind. Enjoy the paradox and your freedom which derives from it.

fire you from your job if I don't like what you have to say

The primary restrictions of the First Amendment is on governments of all sizes as a structural foundation to keep them democratic, because prior undemocratic governments were the most likely to have the largest impact on the freedoms of the People as a whole. Whereas a business can only impact the rights of a small subset of the People. However, even businesses have restrictions on their ability to restrict your freedoms.

For example...

refuse to serve you as a customer

Even that freedom to restrict others by refusing service is restricted, allowing more people their freedom to be served at more establishments. The business refusing is restricted not to include race in the refusal, freeing entire populations of minorities to enter all establishments no matter what their race, color, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation. Again, it's an example of a carefully considered restriction allowing more freedom for more people.

The GPL doesn't try to bar you from stopping people from using the same open source code you got.

Neither the BSD nor the GPL bar that. What differs is that the GPL'd software can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and it can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form with restrictions that only ensure that further recipients have the same rights under which it was obtained.

In short, the GPL ensures that others cannot restrict your freedom to obtain their modifications, just as their freedom was not restricted when they obtained modifications made by others.

The net result is that more people have freedom to access the evolving code as long as it is distributed, and you can pick up the evolution further downstream many generations later on since your freedom to access the distributed changes cannot be restricted. Whereas under the BSD, there is the freedom to restrict the freedom of others from evolving the derived changes you made and distributed. Both the GPL and the BSD have restrictions. Which one that is used is dependent on the understanding of the original developer on what type of behavior is wanted.

...it says YOU MUST CONTRIBUTE.

Only if you DISTRIBUTE the derivation.

= 9J =

Linux is free. Its developers are not. ..free to restrict other developers of having the same rights to the modifications under which the original Linux source was obtained if the derived work is distributed.

There, finished that for you. It's longer but more accurate.

= 9J =

"Free software, software libre or libre software is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with restrictions that only ensure that further recipients have the same rights under which it was obtained and that manufacturers of consumer products incorporating free software provide the software as source code. The word free in the term free software refers to freedom (liberty) and is not at all related to monetary cost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

The GPL isn't "enforcing freedom" or some such... The code you copied will always be free, as is, forever, whatever the license...But calling restrictions "freedom" is the most flagrant orwellian doublespeak crap I've ever heard.

The concept of a carefully designed constraint providing more freedom can seem paradoxical and difficult to imagine. However, if 18th century revolutionaries can manage to grasp it, then 21st century readers might be able to as well.

There is a famous law which restricts the freedom of others to restrict your freedom to speak your mind. Because the freedom to say things is foundational to all other freedoms, it has downstream impacts to other laws that follow. The net result is that you are more free in a country that has this restriction than in a country that doesn't. It's called the "First Amendment to the United States Constitution":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

= 9J =

My apologies for the confusion, I forgot to hyperlink. By "...but only Linux is Free", I meant that when compared to BSD variants, only Linux is Free software as in the following definition:

"Free software, software libre or libre software is software that can be used, studied, and modified without restriction, and which can be copied and redistributed in modified or unmodified form either without restriction, or with restrictions that only ensure that further recipients have the same rights under which it was obtained and that manufacturers of consumer products incorporating free software provide the software as source code. The word free in the term free software refers to freedom (liberty) and is not at all related to monetary cost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

= 9J =

Both are free in cost and use, but only Linux is Free.

The GPL license, which the Linux kernel is under, limits the freedom of developers to limit the freedom of other developers to make use of changes from derived code. This is effectively done when Developer A takes GPL'd code from Developer B to benefit from Developer B's work. If distributing the derived work, Developer A must release any changes made to Developer B's work so that other developers, including Developer B, ARE also in turn Free to benefit the same way that Developer A benefited. This is called reciprocity, and is a form of cooperation (something which most parents hope their children learn). A GPL license by Developer B ensures Developer A behaves in a selfless or altruistic manner at the cost of not allowing Developer A the choice to be selfish to others, including to Developer B. For the convenience of Developer A, this requirement is only triggered when Developer A distributes the derived work originally based on Developer B's GPL'd work. The use of work already under the GPL is a completely voluntary choice for Developer A to make. The freedom of choice as to which type of licensed code to take is not limited, and Developer A can instead look for other work already under the BSD license to take for personal benefit while restricting the same benefit to others by closing the source of their changes.

The BSD license, which the BSD kernel is under, allows developers to limit the freedom of other developers to make use of changes by closing the source of a derived change, limiting the benefit of the change to only the initial closer of the derived source. This doesn't just stop the first generation of developers who could've benefited from the change, but it also stops any later developers from benefiting from and contributing to further generation of changes to the derived work. This is effectively done when Developer A takes BSD'd code from developer B to benefit from developer B's work. If Developer A distributes the derived work, and Developer A doesn't release any changes made to Developer B's work, then other developers, including Developer B, are NOT Free to benefit from the changes made by Developer A the way that Developer A benefited from Developer B's work. This is called selfishness, and is an example of non-cooperation. The BSD license allows the choice to be selfish at the cost of depriving the choice by others to utilize derived changes originally based on the work of others. The freedom of choice as to which type of licensed code to take is not limited, and Developer A can instead look for other work already under the GPL license to take for personal benefit without restricting the same benefit to others.

In either case, it is up to the original developer, Developer B, to decide which type of behavior to allow by choosing the license.

= 9J =

"Better"? Not necessarily.

Study: Crestor Riskier Than Other Statins
"The new study, based on side effects reported to the FDA, said kidney problems and muscle weakness were two to eight times more frequent among Crestor users than those taking other cholesterol-lowering medications like Lipitor, Zocor and Pravachol."
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/833/0

= 9J =

I'd say yours was worth even less. Use Google.

>>Citation? Your statement is plausible, but unsupported, and therefore worthless.

= 9J =

Otherwise, Amazon will become too big to fail.

= 9J =

Informative summary. If I had points, I'd mod that up.

=9J=

Well, if you're asking how does it differ from spying on you without your knowledge as Apple does? It's the difference between an expensive consensual act, and a free rape.

= N9 =

Are you serious? We're talking about a for-profit company. Grow up. Apple stated in that PDF link that they will share this info with whoever they damn well please. Based on your argument, that "spy on you" complicity makes Apple intently evil.

And, no, it isn't a bug...again, if you just read Apple's PDF, they tell you it's intended. Maybe this will help, but I'm beginning to doubt it seeing a pattern in your thoughts:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/

Are you able to tell the difference between an expensive service that you want to intentionally subscribe to and knowingly pay for, and an unwanted security risk that shows up on the news to surprise everyone because it's first time the public has ever heard of it?

I thought I did say that Google would be rotten for doing it, but your own screeching must've blinded you. Oh, wait crapple-fanboy-syndrome stuck in a logical loop.

= N9 =