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 202226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by manmist on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: MORE FUD THAN EVER!"
Member since:

"Yes because GPL will eat BSD license. And *BSD people are proud in writing good code without any restrictions. "

GPL license is not some cannibal and your words remind me of Microsoft's FUD.Learn to stick to legal terms when talking about licenses.

"The significant" <- depends on your environment, if you are a desktop-user ... but there it depends too and it's possible. "

No. Significant means the large majority.

And therefore most of the best and secure software is from OpenBSD - you'll find it in Windows, Linux, *BSD, Solaris .... Because Theo is fanatic about openness and security.

It is because BSD licensed code can be easily forked off and merged into proprietary systems like Windows. Whether OpenBSD is secure or not has nothing to do with whether GPL'ed components are allowed in the base system.

"Many people call this an operating system."

Precisely. OS is useless without applications and large majority of Free software applications are written under the GPL license. So for usable applications you are quite probably relying on GPL'ed code.

Many people call this an operating system."

Reply Parent Score: 0