Use of Licenses will vary...

Story: The Importance of LinuxTotal Replies: 0
Author Content

May 03, 2004
7:29 PM EDT
Open Source isn't GPL, and BSD is "compatible" with both and yet isn't really either. "Unlike other UNIX clones, Linux and the BSD-derived systems (including Darwin) are open source, which means not only that users can have the source if they want it, but also that vendors who improve the source, like Red Hat, have to share their improvements." Thats just not true. Red Hat, using GPL-ed software, will have to make source code available when they distribute. If you don't distribute, then the GPL doesn't come into play. BSD code is free for any use with only one restriction: you don't claim it as your own. Hence the TCP/IP stack in MS Windows. Try getting MS to "share their improvements". Apple did open Darwin, but they did it under the Apple Public Source License. It didn't originally qualify as a Free license until public outcry shamed them into rewording the APSL 2.0 (see Note that this "improves upon the OSI-approved APSL 1.2", and so "Open" and "Free" aren't the same. Note also that the BSD license didn't require that Apple release as "Open" or as "Free".

One of the interesting things about BSD is anyone could take their source, and attribute the origins, and relicense it as *anything*. Thats been called "the freedom to enslave".

Also interesting: your spellchecker doesn't know "GPL" or "APSL".

Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]

Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!