freebsd vs. netbsd
aryeh.friedman at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 05:32:23 UTC 2020
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:01 AM Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions <
freebsd-questions at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 09:40:28 -0400, Aryeh Friedman wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:21 AM Valeri Galtse wrote:
> >> Disclaimer: majority of systems I have in my list of UNIXes strictly
> >> speaking can not be called UNIX, as they do not pay loyalties for
> >> that name to AT&T.
> >Just as with Java your information on the legal status of Unix is
> >****WAY OUT OF DATE***** from wikipedia article on Unix (end of second
> >paragraph) [you really should stop saying stuff unless you know it to
> >be by objective fact to be true]:
Complete misunderstanding of the issues. The issue here is the copyright
on the standard library and *NOT* the language. The court also said that
the copyright was for the contents of the library and not it's
functionality and/or external signatures (only the internal code). Anyone
is allowed to make a work alike that even uses the same external interface
as GNU has done in GCC.
ZFS was originally released open source and anyone can still use it.
Oracle relicensed *NEW* versions of it (you're still free to use old
versions and give them identical enhancements even to the closed source
version provided you used no closed source code). It should be noted that
*ANY* open source project can do that with a new version of their project
for example (neglecting the political firestorm that would erupt) both
Linux and FreeBSD could make their next versions closed source and not a
single person can stop them (assuming that they still abide by the
licensing requirements of third party subcomponents). So someone saying
that they are not willing to use X because it is "no longer open source" is
a complete red herring.
Aryeh M. Friedman, Lead Developer, http://www.PetiteCloud.org
More information about the freebsd-questions