Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35465 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1861 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!ai-lab!hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu!not-for-mail From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Linux and 386BSD Date: 21 Apr 1993 22:32:36 -0400 Organization: dis Lines: 23 Message-ID: <1r5044$18v4@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <JRS.93Apr21200843@lepton.world.std.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.ai.mit.edu In article <JRS.93Apr21200843@lepton.world.std.com> jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) writes: > > The BSD-style license has many advantages. [...] Many intelligent > people have carefully chosen to distribute their works under this > license. They knew what they were doing, they knew about the > potential for abuse, and they would do it again. Nope. You've still missed the point. Whether it is `abuse' or not depends on what the author's original intent was. The developers of BSD, for example, generally don't consider using the code in a proprietary package to be `abuse'. > Misconception: The 386BSD developers do not understand the potential > for abuse with the BSD-style license. See above. -- \ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu /\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted. Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!