Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Feb 2007 14:41 UTC, submitted by Oliver
Permalink for comment 208101
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-04
" you've forgotten to mention Linux and it's viral GPL."
No , the GPL is not viral , it does not spread on its own. Also there is no BSD code inside the GPL that is not accessible or changed to a license that dont permit BSD to use it. I was not clear enough apparently so now you cant twist reality to your lies.
Moulin-goof,
Yes, it is viral and everyone knows it. Many just don't want to admit it. You know, people like you.
How's it viral? If you use GPL code in your software, then your software needs to be GPL'd.
Don't be such a douche bag either. Just because people use the term 'viral' it doesn't mean that they believe the code will infect other code on it's own. It's a term used loosely. It means the code will 'infect' other code when used.
Anyway, I'm done with that.
I believe that GPL code has been used in the FreeBSD kernel before, but only as a module. I think there is some sort of violation if GPL code is compiled into the kernel. I think this was true for certain audio drivers awhile back ago. It's been awhile so I've forgotten.
Personally, I like OpenBSD's route of making everything BSD licensed. It's kinda crazy, but helpful. Yes, even helpful to those who just want to make a fast buck on someone else's code. That's the freedom of the BSD license.
What I don't get is why do so many people bitch about the BSD license and not the MIT license. They're quite similar. They're pretty much equivalent. It's probably because so man Linux machines run X Windows and they don't want to step on their toes.