Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34792 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1717 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!nate From: nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <1993Apr18.180507.515@coe.montana.edu> Sender: usenet@coe.montana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: CS References: <1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Apr17.190517.4276@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> <NOP.93Apr17221444@theory.mankato.msus.edu> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 18:05:07 GMT Lines: 30 In article <NOP.93Apr17221444@theory.mankato.msus.edu> nop@theory.cs.mankato.msus.edu writes: > >In article <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes: > No, my purpose is to make 386BSD completely re-distrubutable, with NO > strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever > can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow > this. > >You and I, and your list of luminaries, can sell binary copies of >GPL'd code. What you can't do is sell 'em without source availability. Agreed. > > The original BSD copyright has been this way, but unfortunately a group of > people take the code, fix the code, and then place restrictions on it. > >How is this worse than, say, DEC fixing the code and not releasing >source at all? DEC never claimed to be 'morally superior', and convince the world that the only way to write code was to do it DEC's way. Nate -- osynw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for nate@cs.montana.edu | these 'computer' things. Personally, work #: (406) 994-4836 | I don't think they'll catch on - home #: (406) 586-0579 | Don Hammerstrom