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 202445
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Bad article
by nevali on Tue 16th Jan 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bad article"
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

OS X is not BSD in any way shape or form - Apple just lifted a proportion of code and modified large parts of it for themselves. Is there some part of that that wasn't clear?

XNU itself is made up of a Mach-based microkernel combined with a kernel-space BSD support layer, one which bears more than a passing resemblance to LITES, as well as FreeBSD.

You can't say ‘they lifted a proportion of code’ and in the same breath say ‘is not BSD in any way shape or form’: the two are completely mutually exclusive. If it wasn't BSD in any way, it wouldn't contain any BSD code: it does contain BSD code—rather a lot of it, in fact. To say that it's categorically ‘not BSD’ is a little like saying that Solaris isn't System V, and I'm not sure anybody's about to claim that.

Edited 2007-01-16 23:45

Reply Parent Score: 4