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.
http://www.debian.org/misc/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
licenses.
Jeremy C. Reed
http://www.reedmedia.net/
http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
Reply to: