From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon May 21 11:35:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from odin.acuson.com (odin.acuson.com [157.226.230.71]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733A337B43E for ; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from djohnson@acuson.com) Received: from acuson.com ([157.226.47.12]) by odin.acuson.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA7A6; Mon, 21 May 2001 11:41:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3B095FFA.69C380F4@acuson.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:35:38 -0700 From: David Johnson Organization: Acuson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Seth Kramer Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [dn-core] Re: Perens' "Free Software Leaders Stand Together" References: <000001c0dfb7$949e85c0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <002501c0e000$57523100$0100000a@home.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Seth Kramer wrote: > > Humor a newbie. What exactly is the difference between GPL and Open > Source? Further how is the licensing for BSD different from Linux distros, > or BSD different from Linux for that matter? I'm extremely biased on this matter, so I'm taking extra effort to be somewhat objective. Although the advocates will go round and round over the differences between "Free Software" and "Open Source Software", they both refer to the same identical concept. All Free Software licenses are *also* Open Source licenses, and vice versa(*). Including the GPL. All licenses have conditions and restrictions on use. The GPL is no exception. Its main conditions require all derivative works also be licensed under the GPL. The Linux kernel is released under the GPL. However, since the GPL would require any software making normal system kernel calls to also be licensed under the GPL, Linus Torvalds included an exception. The BSD license has few restrictions. Basically the only conditions are that the copyright notice and warranty disclaimer follow the software. Both FreeBSD and the Linux distributions use a variety of licenses. The "core" of FreeBSD is under the BSD license, and the "core" of Linux is under the GPL or LGPL. But once you wander outside of the core OS, there is a greater mix of licenses. There is some GPL stuff in the FreeBSD userland, and some BSD licensed stuff in the Linux userland. There is a certain amount of antagonism between the GPL and BSD advocates. Much of it centers on philosophical matters irrelevant to the average developer or user. But to give one small example, I received an unsolicited message from an FSF member calling me a "fool" because I used the BSD license, and that surely someone would come along and "steal" me software :-) As a user, it doesn't matter what Open Source license the software you use is under. You have complete permission to use, copy, give away or sell it. If you are a developer, then you must pay closer attention to the licensing. You cannot use GPL source code in your BSD licensed project, but you can do the reverse. It all depends on your goals and motives. If you want every instance and derivation of your software to be Open Source, then use the GPL. If you want everyone to be able to use it without restriction, then use the BSD license. (*) The APSL was recently approved as an Open Source license, but the FSF has not, and probably will not approve it. So it is not "officially" Free Software according to the FSF. However, it meets their written definition of Free Software, so I consider it as such. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message