bsd vs gpl
utisoft at googlemail.com
Sat Mar 14 16:23:43 PDT 2009
2009/3/11 David Kelly <dkelly at hiwaay.net>:
> 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 at HiWAAY.net
> Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
Sorry, what do Red Hat et al do to 'skirt' around the requirements of
the GPL? They are some of the biggest supporters of free software.
They abide by the letter AND the spirit of the GPL. They are a model
free software business; charging for support etc is the most
legitimate way of making money from software.
More information about the freebsd-questions