Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Codename - Ron Benjamin; Golden Eagle
In the past GE has stated a preference for the BSD license, rather than the GPL. Yet his main contention against the GPL is that it allows others to take, incorporate, re-sell code without any recompense to the original author.

Since BSD allows exactly that (and more), his arguments seem (to most of us) to be quite circular in reasoning and they make very little sense. Hence his perception that we are attacking him for his views as opposed to the lack of logic in his views.

As has been stated on this thread earlier, Solaris is now open source. He would prefer we use that rather than Linux because of the license. I see no difference between the two, as far as revenue or ip sharing is concerned.

112 posted on 01/22/2005 10:07:30 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: ShadowAce

GPL is different, yet you push it without even understanding how it compares to the other licenses. BSD allows commercial companies to use it in their products without having to give the resulting code away to the rest world for free, as GPL requires. Sun's new license doesn't allow foreign entities to take that code, rename and resell, without return to Sun, as GPL does. Significant differences, to those who actually understand them.


116 posted on 01/22/2005 10:23:52 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson