2006 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2006 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2006. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends February 18th.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Nope, because you don't have to provide the source and it doesn't require other programs linked to it to have the same license. Thus, you can use BSD-licensed code in a proprietary program. I know, it doesn't sound like a good thing, but if a company has a program with trade secrets, the last thing they want is to release the source to it. Since programs linked to it don't have to be BSD-licensed, it's easier to implement that code, such as TCP/IP for Windows, a basis for the Darwin kernel, and various tools for Linux.
I was thinking in more of the Lines of a Company releasing THERE software under the the BSD License.
Quote:
Originally Posted by angryfirelord
Hmm, I tried looking but I couldn't spot a statement like that. Could you point it out?
Thats interesting. I heard form my brother that GPLed Source can not be used by Companies. That is one of the reasons he prefers the BSD License.
Thats interesting. I heard form my brother that GPLed Source can not be used by Companies. That is one of the reasons he prefers the BSD License.
That's just completely false. Everybody can use GPLed source. Read the GPL. Look at Tivo, Linksys, D-link, ... they all use GPLed software in they're products. But they'll have to comply with with the clauses in the license agreement. Most importantly they will have to publish the changes they made to code under the GPL.
Thats interesting. I heard form my brother that GPLed Source can not be used by Companies. That is one of the reasons he prefers the BSD License.
GPL can be used by companies, but it makes it much harder to sell your software if you have to provide the source, whether free or pay. If your product is popular, someone's going to make a free rebuild of it. That's why companies prefer the BSD license, they can use the code without publishing the source.
Some people may argue that the BSD license permits the stealing of code. I say if the company cares about the project, then they'll contribute back regardless of what license is being used.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.