OSNews > Thread > "RE[4]: GLP vs BSD" by cyclops

Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sun 15th Apr 2007 20:11 UTC

"We're now more than a decade later than the moment when I judged the open source to have gained a decisive momentum - 1996-1997, when Slackware was the reference, Red Hat was 'the other choice', KDE and GNOME were just emerging, Walnut Creek was selling CD-ROMs, and SunSITE mirrors were the home of most of the relevant software. The worst thing that happened was that Yggdrasil Linux died. But the Earth kept spinning..." Read the rest of the editorial at TheJemReport.

0 92 Comment(s)

http://osne.ws/dnp

Thread beginning with comment 231329
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

RE[4]: GLP vs BSD

by cyclops on Mon 16th Apr 2007 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GLP vs BSD"

Member since:
2006-03-12

"GPL aka "freedom" for software
BSD aka freedom for the user"

I'm certain I disagree with both of those sweeping statements.

Could you inform exactly how as a "user" I benefit from BSD code in a binary application.

Please do not talk about FUD. What you have said is a lie.

There are benefits to both licenses, put please focus on those rather than invent stuff.

Edited 2007-04-16 13:22

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[5]: GLP vs BSD

by openwookie on Mon 16th Apr 2007 15:16 in reply to "RE[4]: GLP vs BSD"

Member since:
2006-04-25

Could you inform exactly how as a "user" I benefit from BSD code in a binary application.

You will be running well tested, peer reviewed code rather than half-baked code, developed in house by some guys straight out of college.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[6]: GLP vs BSD

by google_ninja on Mon 16th Apr 2007 15:24 in reply to "RE[5]: GLP vs BSD"

Member since:
2006-02-05

So your implying big companies do not test or review code?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1