Re:GPL-compatible? (Score 1)

Sorry Millennium, but I didn't quite catch your point. I wasn't really talking about ownership. I was addressing the common complaint that people don't want someone else making a million dollars off of their code. That's their business and that's fine. But when people start using the words "deny" and "rights" to promote the GPL or discredit BSD style licenses, that's when the piles other than socks start getting deep.

More importantly, I think the socks example can be very misleading. I can duplicate an entire software product without modifying the original. With a pile of socks, I cannot. This makes all the difference.

The important point here is that no one is going to modify the original BSD source base and eliminate our rights to it. If someone copies BSD, modifies it, and sells it, they are obviously not modifying the original copy. The BSD groups themselves maintain the original copies. And technically, anyone with a copy of the source trees helps ensure that we do not lose the original source and license.

To make the socks example fit better, imagine someone can duplicate your entire pile of socks without touching your pile. They then add 2 socks. Somehow, they deny the public rights related to their pile. What rights have they really denied the public? The difference between your free pile and their non-free pile is 2 socks. 2 socks only. Their modifications only. That's it. That is why I claim that the rights issue only involves their modifications (2 socks in this example). And hey, aren't those 2 socks their business? Who are we to demand that they give us the source to their additions?

From this point of view, there is no issue at all. The "problem" doesn't exist. If we're trying to promote free software, let's write some free software. If we're trying to push some other agenda, perhaps our software licenses are not the best avenue.