Re: OT: Darwin
"Albert D. Cahalan" <email@example.com> writes:
> >> NetBSD has also a not so free sourcecode (I see it as package not
> >> only the Kernel). Some parts are not published under GPL (like
> >> Linux) but under the BSD License which restricts developers and
> >> users.
> > That's not correct. The BSD license is more liberal than the GPL,
> Nope. The original BSD license places restrictions on how you may
> advertize BSD-based products. (must mention UC Berkeley) While the
> university has dropped this requirement, many people cloned the
> license with their own name in place of UC Berkeley. Thus you may
> not advertize NetBSD without including a huge list of contributers.
I guess it depends on your version of 'liberal'. Despite that
restriction, you can do more with the BSD code than with GPL code.
Who cares about the details though, I hate licensing discussions - I
just wanted to correct a rather gross error on the part of the
David N. Welton
Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/
Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/