gpl and bsd license

gui10 · 04-25-2002, 05:51 AM

what is the diff? i can't really see it... is it that the source code doesn't necessarily have to be distributed if it is under the BSD license?

Mara · 04-25-2002, 03:11 PM

The difference is that MS can "borrow" code from programs on BSD and use it without publishing it.

jeremy · 04-25-2002, 03:26 PM

This is a highly debated topic that is quite complex. The following link goes into the gory details.

http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyrigh...on/index.shtml

--jeremy

gui10 · 04-25-2002, 08:36 PM

thanks! i've been wondering for a long time...

neo77777 · 04-25-2002, 08:46 PM

As it stated in "Linux + Study Guide" BSD license unlike GPL allows modifications to be destributed under other licenses.

gui10 · 04-25-2002, 09:55 PM

hm, just read the article... as with any other thing, once it gets bigger, it's one idealism vs another... and the only thing we can be sure about it is that most people on the ground will suffer. Rosseau wasn't very much wrong about social contract... geez...

sounds like much ado about nothing except for a perspective that should be considered. the gpl already has a practical place in society... personally, i don't think we need extremist proponents nor entrenched opposition to bother us with it.