I know (well, i guess) what you are going to say next, if a competitor comes and makes a better product by absorbing Gnote’s code, isn’t that good for the users? After all it’s all about the features and making the coolest software.

Wait, what was wrong with GPL’d apps again? I quote: “However, rather than being included in some proprietary app, it’s ported to Linux and relicensed as GPL. Again, the license permits this – but now you have people making enhancements and improvements to your code, and sharing them amongst themselves, but not with you. Rather than your project simply being “used” in some dead-end capacity, it’s been forked completely – and intentionally in such a way that you don’t get any of the additions to that fork back. Developers end up going to the fork, not to the original, and unless they consciously dual-license their changes, said changes are lost to the original.”

What you are describing is a classic EEE, albeit done by a GPL’d fork. So when a proprietary app does an EEE you celebrate the Embrace and the Extend and dismiss the Extinguish as either “not my problem i still have my code” or “not gonna happen because they will still give me back code” even when that helps their competition so it’s not probable.

But when a GPL’d app does an EEE you resent the Embrace, envy the Extend, and woe and audibly lament and announce the coming of the Extinguish.

That’s the double standard the “BSD is more free”-crowd have that bothers me.

Any way, I’ve come full circle, if I don’t reply further is because I’ve got nothing new to say.

It’s been a long time but my understanding is that Darwin was dropped as soon as Apple saw fit and progress in the MacOS Kernel continues behind doors or at least the last Darwin package dates back to 2006, then Apple did (at least initially) comply in the least cooperative way possible, by dropping a tar ball without any explanation of how things changed and why, I don’t see the enthusiasm to give back.

This is just a matter of opinion and we cannot agree but it seems to me you put too much faith in the cooperation of people who don’t want to cooperate.

If closed source did not exist I’m pretty sure the GPL would happily add a clause to release back changes as BSD, and you could always, use the GPL’d version, you just can’t get it into closed source products which is what the BSD license is all about, I don’t see any problems with that, only with the rhetoric that because of that the GPL doesn’t allow that is then “less free”.

Is like saying that sharia law is better than US law because it allows you to beat, starve and rape your wife, US law sure is restrictive.

But as I said this is a matter of opinion. Still the way you talk echos of back end code, do you think the GPL is still unacceptable regarding front end applications? In the case of applications like Tomboy and Gnote, don’t you think the GPL serves better since it is highly unlikely that a close source competitor would release back interface improvements?

Also Theora is an excellent example of why not every projects is served best by the GPL, but wouldn’t the LGPL be better for back end code, you can get changes back and still retain your precious option of boost closed source competitor?

You assume that it’s the use of LGPL which “forced” apple to release back Webkit – yet Darwin is decided BSD-licensed, and still sees apple giving back. It’s a question of attitude and ethics, not licenses (which is how you end up with GPL violators crying foul – they’re not interested in following ANY license, they’re simply unethical)

Taking code without giving back is a mark of low-quality code, and lack of faith in your abilities. Or, more charitably, lack of time or value. A company will relicense code as proprietary to integrate it with their own code – and the majority of changes they make will be related to that integration effort, not to feature enhancements which could or should go into your code. If they’re putting in the effort to develop your code, it serves THEIR purposes to give back, even if the license (BSD) doesn’t force them to, as it means you are able to work on new features (rather than using your time up implementing your own equivalent to their features).

Not every company wants to be pushed into relicensing their own app as GPL as a result of it. As an example, if the stock Theora decoder were GPL, then games developers wouldn’t write their own – they’d simply pay their patent fees and use MP3 or AAC or somesuch – and I don’t see propping up that kind of thing as better.

Like I said, I agree with most of what you just said there except one thing, and I quote “it’s not as if companies which do that make any changes you’d want to take back”

So did Apple not add value to KHTML with webkit? Did KDE not benefit from choosing the LGPL?

Why would a company relicense your code as proprietary if it didn’t give them a competitive advantage?

Let’s say you write a driver for OpenBSD’s kernel. It’s a good driver. And, obviously, BSD licensed. Now, the BSD license usage means you know people might incorporate your code in their proprietary app – never mind though, your license allows it, and a “fully free” license allows for such behaviour. However, rather than being included in some proprietary app, it’s ported to Linux and relicensed as GPL. Again, the license permits this – but now you have people making enhancements and improvements to your code, and sharing them amongst themselves, but not with you. Rather than your project simply being “used” in some dead-end capacity, it’s been forked completely – and intentionally in such a way that you don’t get any of the additions to that fork back. Developers end up going to the fork, not to the original, and unless they consciously dual-license their changes, said changes are lost to the original. You don’t “lose” when your code goes into a proprietary app, as it’s not as if companies which do that make any changes you’d want to take back.

GPL is a restrictive license compared to BSD, in that it’s “forced freedom” rather than “enabled freedom” – and most people would call it unsavoury behaviour to take your code, and relicense it under their own less-Free license.

As for Gnote, I hate the way it’s used as a beating stick by people who have an agenda – I’m pretty sure I said multiple times that if it were a superior app, it would make for a better default. If people want to advocate Gnote, they should do so HONESTLY – i.e. honesty regarding functional equivalence, over disk usage, over RAM usage, should be honest and use honest numbers – not the fabrications of agenda-driven liars. If Gnote were “just an app” then it wouldn’t offend – but as a poster child for offensive people, by being marketed as something which it is not, it causes ire.

If BSD code is relicensed as GPL they are *absorbing* it, who wants their \”generosity\”? If it is relicensed as proprietary it’s “fine by me, I just want my code to be free”.

Aaaanyway, you seem to hate Gnote because it’s young and still lacks features and team members, could you cut them some slack? The only thing they are doing to you is *not using mono* you seem to hate people for not using mono.