Why use GPL instead of BSD license
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cgagnon Mar 25, 2006 4:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:"A culture of entitlement is starting to damage the open source community,"Exactly what, IMHO, the GPL and free(dom) model protect coder from. Quoting:The relationship is all take and no give. That's basically unfair, says de Raadt.In a perfect world everyone would be fair, but the world is far from perfect. Quoting:to resort to hard-line capitalism platitudes such as "no one owes you a living in this world.You can't make a cow lay an egg any more than you can make a capitalist a humanist. Quoting:it's they who owe some of their and their company's success to individuals like de Raadt.They have been paid as they requested via their license. I'm sure attribution notices are in tact. This is why, IMHO, the GPL is a far superior license. Under the GPL your work cannot be hijacked by anyone trying to make money off the work. If you use GPL'd code and distribute it, you MUST return changes and enhancement to the community. If you use the BSD license you must keep attribution/copyright notices in the source in tact. The rules have been followed as they have been requested. |
| richo123 Mar 25, 2006 5:43 AM EDT |
Yes this sounds like an accurate analysis. I read somewhere that MS uses quite a bit of BSD code to bolster their bottomline. Theo's at it again: Maybe he needs to help Linus straighten out that "pile of crap" called the linux kernel. On the other hand.... |
| dtfinch Mar 25, 2006 12:28 PM EDT |
Without the BSD license, it just wouldn't be very BSD-like anymore. |
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!