Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:36870 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2125 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!think.com!enterpoop.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: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Date: 1 May 1993 10:56:12 -0400 Organization: dis Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1ru32c$15e4@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <C63spB.BD@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <9304299328@monty.apana.org.au> <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.ai.mit.edu I was just thinking about this earlier today... In article <C6BJMo.Lvx@ra.nrl.navy.mil> eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) writes: > > Could someone explain why most people who write under the BSD > copyright remain ambivalent about scenario 1, but find scenario 2 so > objectionable? Because someone taking completely free code and placing it under the GPL appears to me to violate the GNU project's alleged principles; they are taking code and putting a restrictive license on it, exactly the way any of the Evil Software-Hoarding Companies would do, albeit with (somewhat) different terms. -- \ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu /\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted. Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!