Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35514 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1878 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!uknet!mcsun!hp4at!rcvie!cc_paul From: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf Paul) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <1993Apr20.135723.752@rcvie.co.at> Sender: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf N. Paul) Reply-To: cc_paul@rcvie.co.at (Wolf N. Paul) Organization: Alcatel Austria Research Centre References: <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> <C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 13:57:23 GMT Lines: 23 In article <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se> d87-mal@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist) writes: > (In reply to a complaint about the GNU GPL) > >Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence >you have to accept if you want to use it? Is it because the code "is there" >in front of you, looking so available? Most people annoyed by the GPL terms >sounds like children in a candy store when they are told the candy is not >free to take just because it is lying there under their noses. Maybe because chief proponents of the FSF assume such a morally superior, holier-than-thou attitude about their supposedly "free" software which in reality isn't free at all but encumbered with a rather complex set of rules? The problem with the candy store you mention above is that it sports a great big sign, "Free Candy", and once you're inside you find out that that is a bunch of baloney, it isn't free, but has strings attached. -- V Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center wnp@rcvie.co.at +-----------------+ Alcatel Austria Research Center +43-1-391621-122 (w) | A L C A T E L | Ruthnergasse 1-7 +43-1-391452 (fax) +-----------------+ A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe +43-1-2246913 (h)