Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:02:47 -0500 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: prad <prad@towardsfreedom.com> Cc: FreeBSD-Questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bsd vs gpl Message-ID: <20090311140247.GE86605@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> In-Reply-To: <20090311012018.2075c3d9@gom.home> References: <20090311012018.2075c3d9@gom.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:20:18AM -0700, prad wrote: > i've not paid much attention to licensing philosophy i the past, > because for me it was always windoze vs the goodguys. > > however, recently i've become aware of there being a chasm within the > goodguys in that the bsd attitude is do what you want as long as you > give credit to the creator, whereas the gpl folks say do what you want > as long as you keep it free. > > is this a fair summation? No, too simple. The source code is always free under BSD, contrary to what GPL proponents claim. Just that under BSD you are free to keep ownership of your own work. To decide how *you* wish to distribute. You may limit the redistribution of your work which includes BSD components. GPL people seem to forget the base BSD code is still free, its just that they want your enhancements too. Its a lesson in how to lie the way they claim this is somehow "free" and/or "freedom." GPL states that if you make changes those changes must be made available under the same terms as the original source code. Yet somehow darlings of the GPL world such as Red Hat, MySQL, and others, skirt around that onerous requirement. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090311140247.GE86605>