Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Jan 2009 00:15 UTC
Thanks to SGI, a potential disaster for Free software purists has been averted. Back in January 2008, it was discovered by the OpenBSD guys that some of the contributions to X.org and the Mesa 3D Graphics Library made by SGI were covered under permissive open source licenses that didn't fall within FSF's definition of Free software. The FSF Compliance Lab worked with SGI to resolve the issue, and they succeeded.
Thread beginning with comment 342896
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[7]: Not a good thing when BSD thieve celebrate
by Moulinneuf on Fri 9th Jan 2009 20:01
in reply to "RE[6]: Not a good thing when BSD thieve celebrate"
Member since:2005-07-06
Only if the GPLv2 license carries the "or later" clause. For example, the Linux kernel does not, therefore, it is not compatible.
No , otherwise the kernel itself would stop working due to incompatible licensing.
Huh? Both the BSD's and HURD can still be developed.
No , A large amount of BSD derivative are now closed ( as in product with one company supporting them ) and bankrupt and no one can use the code nor the hardware modifications there.
HURD is not as successful
See it's not a failure , if it's not as successful don't mean it had no success accomplishing it's goals.
HURD is not as successful as Linux
Without HURD you don't have Linux ...
nor the main BSD OS's.
No idea what your talking about by "Main BSD OS."
BSD's exist today because in the past they where dependant on the GNU tools that where created due to HURD who's goal was to create real Free Software...
BSD was created with the goald to Free UNIX and replace it with Free software. It is a failure because it failed that goal and Thieve now outnumber the real BSD's.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-06-29
GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3.
Only if the GPLv2 license carries the "or later" clause. For example, the Linux kernel does not, therefore, it is not compatible.
The hurd is not a failure , it's not BSD's , people can still develop it.
Huh? Both the BSD's and HURD can still be developed. HURD is not as successful as Linux nor the main BSD OS's.