Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Jan 2007 14:08 UTC, submitted by RJ
GNU, GPL, Open Source "We observe that there exists a broad misconception that the BSD permits the licensing of BSD code and modifications of BSD code under closed source licenses. In this paper we put forward an argument to the effect that the terms of the BSD require BSD code and modifications to BSD code to be licensed under the terms of the BSD license. We look at some possible consequences and observe that this licensing requirement could have serious impacts on the unwary."
Permalink for comment 202203
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
manmist
Member since:
2005-12-18

"The system itself works without any GPL code (and it's more than just a kernel), it isn't possible at all because of the GPL. "

Yes. You can put up a kernel and base tools without any GPL'ed code. Works" != Usable for the significant portion of users though. We need more software out there and the large majority is licensed under GPL. Look at http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html for a detailed analysis.

" So yes, it's not about GPL vs BSD, but these are essential details!"

BSD folks like Theo are so much fanatical that they wont allow GPL'ed software into the base system and not even Apache 2 because he considers it non-free but the whole system is compiled with GCC anyway. Linux distributions are however happy to put BSD code in their system.

Same for NetBSD and FreeBSD. So yes, you require GCC to even bootstrap the system. Try compiling it with any other compiler and watch it all break down.

Reply Parent Score: 0