Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 14th Oct 2006 21:16 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
The article goes on to paint a doomsday scenario about how there will be an older version and a newer version of Linux floating around, and how such a division will split and ultimately weaken the Linux operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 172149
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[20]: There is nothing "free" about the GPL
by openwookie on Mon 16th Oct 2006 19:16
in reply to "RE[19]: There is nothing "free" about the GPL"
Member since:2006-04-25
Ehh... that's what I said.
No, you didn't. If that is what you meant to say, then this whole thread is the result of your use of ambiguous english.
To clarify, I have no issue with in house modifcation of GPL software (i've done it). But statement such as "BSD can be closed", and "all modifcations to GPL software must be returned to the community" is simply not true. The difference between what you wrote and what you meant might be subtle, but there is a difference.
RE[21]: There is nothing "free" about the GPL
by dylansmrjones on Mon 16th Oct 2006 19:29
in reply to "RE[20]: There is nothing "free" about the GPL"
Member since:2005-10-02
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-10-02
Ehh... that's what I said.
I never said the original BSD-project wasn't open source if the derivative was closed sourced. I just wrote that if you closed the derivative that project was no longer open.
The original is still open, to the extent it is accessible anymore.
It's one of the strengths of BSD and its greatest weakness. The protection in GPL is the greteast strength and weakness of the GPL.
However, in-house modifications are utterly irrelevant. I will forever disagree with you upon in-house modifications, since there is no distribution.
You are free - no matter the license - to modify as you please in house.
The GPL allows that and the BSD allows that, and if an EULA do not allow the EULA is void (at least in Denmark).
Since there is no distribution of in-house solutions then there is no closing of the source. The closing of the source happens the second you distribute without giving source access.
Therefore - in house modifications are utterly irrelevant.