RE: Is it _really_ dead?
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> I guess the unspoken issue that's caused confusion for me in this
> thread is that Debian is as much about philosophy as it is about
> software, or operating systems. One sticking point is likely to
> be licensing issues. The GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux are based (obviously)
> on a Stallmanesque GPL-centric ideal, where we know what we produce
> cannot be extended and resold under a restrictive license. This
> is one area that we differ from BSD, in that BSD allows the licensing
> of the software to be changed. I worry that a Debian/BSD might
> not meet with much enthusiasm as a Debian Project.
How does a BSD-type license allow licensing of the software to be changed?
Yes, someone can take a BSD-licensed code and change it and sell the
binaries without supplying the source and changes. But binary or source
distributions must include the BSD license.
Why does it matter? If someone takes the new BSD-licensed code used in a
DebianBSD and extends it and sells it, who cares? Anyways, Debian and
FreeBSD are already made up of a bunch of tools that have a variety of
Jeremy C. Reed