Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:36865 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2124 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo!sugar!peter From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900 Date: Sat, 1 May 1993 11:48:30 GMT Message-ID: <C6CJGv.3vB@sugar.neosoft.com> References: <C63spB.BD@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Lines: 27 In article <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) writes: > I guess I do not understand the difference between IBM "hijacking" your > program and a GPLer "hijacking" your program. That's exactly the point, isn't it. > Could someone explain why most people who write under the BSD copyright > remain ambivalent about scenario 1, but find scenario 2 so objectionable? They don't. They just don't want to force scenario 2 on anyone else. You're welcome to use 386BSD stuff in Linux. Just understand why we don't want to use GPL stuff in the 386BSD kernel or libraries. Remember how this whole discussion got started... someone wanted 386BSD to include some GPL code in the kernel. Then the GNU-fanatics got offended, and the anti-GNU-paranoids came out of hiding. Pretty soon we get outrageous accusations from both sides and the whole point gets lost. Can we consider the points made, now? Let's move on to something more productive, eh? -- Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. `-_-' Har du kramat din varg idag? 'U` "Det er min ledsager, det er ikke drikkepenge."