Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34859 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1730 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!kithrup.com!sef From: sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. References: <1993Apr17.190517.4276@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> <D87-MAL.93Apr18165428@byse.nada.kth.se> <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com> Message-ID: <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 03:30:10 GMT Lines: 17 In article <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I linked it with >their toolkits. Neither does the FSF. What the FSF does say, however, is that you must continue to follow the GPL if you distribute a program that include GPL'd code. Part of this requirement is that you must distribute source code to the entire product (with various exceptions mentioned in the GPL and LGPL). Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or, rather, a derivative product of your code and their code). Most vendors have changed their rather ridiculous licenses by now, but not all, by any means.