Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech2!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.eng.convex.com!not-for-mail From: ldaffner@convex.com (Larry Daffner) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD Date: 7 Dec 1995 12:54:49 -0600 Organization: Engineering, Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx USA Lines: 36 Message-ID: <4a7d9p$860@muirwood.convex.com> References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <DJ3DM7.n0L@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a1s2i$4l9@zuul.nmti.com> <DJ6y7H.MIE@kroete2.freinet.de> <4a6fgo$6lg@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: muirwood.convex.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:29528 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:9951 comp.unix.advocacy:11835 comp.unix.misc:19900 In <4a6fgo$6lg@agate.berkeley.edu> jkh@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes: >can do whatever the heck else you like. The GPL puts a whole >raft of extra restrictions on how the software must be distributed >or changed, and that is why we're less than willing to use it >for our kernels - the question of distributing source for >binaries (especially if you're producing some product like >"router on a floppy") just gets too complex. I'd like to pint out something here. The GPL is NOT very complicated at all. There are 3 main points to the GPL. 1) If you distribute a binary for GPL-covered software, you must ensure that the recipients have access to the source. It doesn't mean that you can't do binary only distributions of say, emacs. But if you do, and the recipient wants source, it's your responsibility to make sure they can get it, and make any improvements they wish. 2) Any derivatives of GPL works are GPL'ed. IE, If you use GPL code in a product, the product is placed under the GPL. That is, I can't take your GPL code, use it to make my own app and distribute it in binary only form. (Note that this is a lie in the case of GNU libraries, the restrictions are different). 3) If you distribute GPL-ed software, you should make the recipients aware of the above two rights. How is this complicated? All it says is free software remains free. And what's so tough about an anonymous FTP site with source code? It may be a bit covered in legalese these days, but the GPL is not as restrictive as everyone here seems to claim it is. -- Larry Daffner - Software Engineer | email: ldaffner@convex.com | Convex Computer Corporation | tel: (214)497-4274 / home: (214)380-4382 | It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. --Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.