Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:45:42 -0700 From: Timothy Beyer <beyert@cs.ucr.edu> To: Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> Cc: Diane Bruce <db@db.net>, "Gary W. Swearingen" <garys@opusnet.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSDLinux OS Message-ID: <878xywypm1.wl%beyert@cs.ucr.edu> In-Reply-To: <ef10de9a050820183835f91b95@mail.gmail.com> References: <ef10de9a0508200102148196e0@mail.gmail.com> <4306EAB7.4090001@skyforge.net> <ef10de9a05082010564e9eed5e@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.NEB.4.62.0508201159300.639@pilchuck.reedmedia.net> <ef10de9a050820141871305e20@mail.gmail.com> <20050820212745.GA2998@night.db.net> <ef10de9a0508201543e4905f7@mail.gmail.com> <1515C667-4333-4147-BA3E-E04C2ED8382A@HiWAAY.net> <20050820231549.GB3909@night.db.net> <u064u0p06b.4u0@mail.opusnet.com> <ef10de9a050820183835f91b95@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On 8/20/05, Gary W. Swearingen <garys@opusnet.com> wrote: > > Diane Bruce <db@db.net> writes: > > > > > I personally can't be bothered wasting my time putting a bsd userland > > > on top of a linux kernel, but I would like to see RMS scream. There goes > > > his claim to "Gnu/linux", as Linus himself last I read, was indifferent > > > to the license. > > > > Linus has expressed his preference for viral, > > no-derivation-without-payment-in-the- form-of-cross-licensing > > licenses; i.e., copyleft licenses, e.g., FSF GPL. He likened > > the freedom of the BSDL and the public domain to anarchy. > > > > > > In reply to other msgs: > > > > Based on a quick reading of the web site linked from www.MirBSD.de, > > it's formally named "MirOS BSD" and basically an OpenBSD with a Linux > > kernel, but there is or will be other versions. > > > > GPL'd software in base FreeBSD includes a lot of code and it would be > > hard to replace. I don't know if RMS calls it a "GNU system". > > > > You have Perl on that list but Perl is not GPL. > > "Perl is Open Source software. It's free for you to download and use > as you wish. Perl's license is called the Artistic license. Read it if > you aren't sure what you can or can't do. The bottom line is that this > is a kinder and gentler version of the GNU license -- one that doesn't > infect your work if you care to borrow from Perl or package up pieces > of it as part of a commercial product!" -perl.com That's true, perl is definitely not GNU software, but the artistic license is so confusing that is often hard to tell what it really means. Keep in mind that perl is dual-licensed, as noted on perl.org: "Perl is Open Source software, licensed under its Artistic License, or the GNU General Public License (GPL)." Does anyone know if the artistic license can be interpreted in the spirit of the BSD license? I used to have a very low opinion of the license, but I recently reread it and I think it may not be a copyleft license depending on the options selected in clauses #3(a or c, depending on need) and #4 (a or c, depending on need) However clause #5 bothers me. "You may not charge a fee for this Package itself." As far as I know, the artistic license appears to be a non-commercial except for "a reasonable copying fee," or "any fee you choose for support of this package," although clause #8 seems to be a very liberal exception to very specific aspects of this rule. I don't really get this license. --Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?878xywypm1.wl%beyert>