[KLUG Members] Difference

[Peter Buxton]

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:25:57PM -0400, J. Edward Durrett wrote:

> Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>
> > Linux is GPL'd, it cannnot be closed.  AFAIK, none of the BSDs are
> > under GPL.  Their licenses are more restrictive.  But more
> > importantly the lead team on the BSD projects score higher on the
> > arrogant scale,  so they just can generate the same amount of
> > momentum.
> 
> BSD's are not under GPL under the theory that GPL is not completely
> free.  OpenBSD goes as far as not allowing "non-free" code from being
> used at all. At least that is my understanding of it.

Well....

No, the new BSD license is not more restrictive. The most restrictive
part of the GNU General Public License states that any additions or
changes must be licensed in a way compatible with the GPL and made
available to the previous coder. The new BSD license, without the
advertising clause, is compatible. The problem is that BSD licensed code
may be closed-source by another party, and the presence of GPL'ed code
would interfere with that.

> > And I diddled with BSD awhile ago, generally like a bad commercial
> > version of UNIX.  It takes a long time to bring one up to a state
> > of usability with a robust tool kit.  BSD *HAD* some performance
> > advantages under high load or intense network traffic,  but with
> > the release of 2.6 I fully expect Linux to surpass them after
> > which they will slowly die on the vine (if they aren't already).

It's true. BSD is dying -- Troll!

> Although I primarily use Linux (Debian/GNU Linux), there are some good
> things about the BSD's especially on the security side -- Oh, whee
> would I be with out OpenSSH(openBSD)!!

Ah, another Debian user. :-) Yes, where would we be without OpenSSH?

> Also, the BSD's, weather free or commercial, are UNIX not Linux --
> although the screen might seem the same, different stuff is happening!

I don't think so.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/03/17/bsd.html

You could easily say that 2.11BSD wasn't 'true' Unix, as it had many
enhancements and was a complete distribution all by itself. AT&T's
System V was proven in court to have more BSD code than BSD had System V
code. Unix is a set of standards and a philosophy. AIX, HP-UX, Tru64,
Xenix, BSDi, System V, A/UX, Solaris, IRIX... all licensed UNIX(r). You
think those are all alike?

-- 
-128
I am not a Pillar, but a Buttress, of the Established
Church: I support it from without. -- Lord Melbourne