Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:33:59 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.org>, advocacy@openbsd.org, NetBSD-advocacy@NetBSD.org Subject: Re: TwoCows articles on BSD (was: Someone please flame TwoCows) Message-ID: <20010107173359.D52707@wantadilla.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <3A580E76.7DF3A8A4@softweyr.com>; from wes@softweyr.com on Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 11:36:38PM -0700 References: <20010107115008.F97330@wantadilla.lemis.com> <3A580E76.7DF3A8A4@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, 6 January 2001 at 23:36:38 -0700, Wes Peters wrote: > Greg Lehey wrote: >> >> This came from the NetBSD advocacy list. There are articles on all >> three BSDs there, with some factual errors (the biggest one I saw was >> that they claim all three systems have a GPL licence). On the other >> hand, it's intended to be positive, and we shouldn't follow Hubert's >> lead and flame the author. Instead, it would be nice if as many >> people as possible sent him messages correcting factual errors (but >> without saying "My BSD is better than his BSD"). > > Flaming is not likely to help much. Patiently and politely explaining > might. My response, typed terribly into their itty-bitty response box: > >> NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD under GPL? Heaven forbid! >> Just to avoid confusion, I'll paste in the license >> from this FreeBSD system: >> >> * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 >> * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. >> * >> <snip> >> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software >> * must display the following acknowledgement: >> * This product includes software developed by the University of >> * California, Berkeley and its contributors. Oops. This one is dead. >> Sure enough, nothing in there about "you must >> give away everything you work on," "this license >> virally attaches itself to every piece of software >> in comes on contact with," or any other GPL-like >> clauses. Must not be the GPL. >> >> This is often know as a "Berkeley" license, and it >> allows you to do with the software as you choose. >> Kirk McKusick, the keeper of the flame at UC Berkeley >> these days, refers to it as the "copycenter" as in >> "take it down to the copycenter and make as many >> copies as you wish. >> >> Thanks for noticing, and please don't hesitate to ask >> if you need clarification on points like this in the >> future. Feel free to consult one or more of the >> following mailing lists (in alphabetical order): >> >> freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org >> netbsd-advocacy@netbsd.org >> advocacy@openbsd.org >> >> The bright, cheery BSD advocates there will be happy to >> help with BSD licensing, history, and community >> questions. > > If someone else would like to point the author at a web article or two > explaining the difference between the GPL and Berkeley licenses, and > another point him to the "Open Source" acceptance of the 2-clause > license, perhaps we'll have him gently educated. Greg -- Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010107173359.D52707>