BSD was part of TCP/IP, virtual memory, file system, sockets, ARPANET... remember?
GNU/GPL was not part of a research project, hence no innovation, hence not academic.
2) No, GPL is not academic, as pointed earlied. BSD, on the other hand, was. Also, I'm not an extremist when it comes to open/closed source; I think open-source is valuable, and personaly I had learned a lot from it, but I don't see closed-source as an enemy, as is usually seen by the GNU/GPL camp.
3) I don't find GPL's protection mechanism as freedom, nor BSD's abscense of them as anti-free.
"The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called ‘copycenter’, which is ‘take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want.’"
—Kirk McKusick, BSDCon 1999
I don't depend on "GPL people" so I would give a fuck if they give a fuck.
http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html and tell me that the BSD folks weren't fighting for freedom if you dare.
So, do you think that you, FSF, GNU, GPL or Richard Stallman really have the last word in this? You should stop thinking of yourselves as owners of the truth.
I think the term 'freedom' is one of the most controversial used throughout history, and neither of us are in the position to say what it is and what it isn't. The most we can do is say what represents closer our ideal of freedom
Also, notice that not everyone agrees with Stallman and the GNU/GPL project; it is not a BSD-exclusive thing. For example, look at the way Linus Torvalds thinks: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
Torvalds is very critic with this whole issue: he likes GPL2, but does not agree with FSF, Stallman, GNU/GPL in all they say.
BTW, nowadays GPL and Linux is far more academic then BSD. When CS and software degree students go to classes on UNIX, they are taught using a distro of Linux instead. Also, a lot of research into inventing new security features and ways of computing are done using linux not bsd. University supercomputers use to do calculations use linux not bsd.
I met a recent graduate from a BSc. He did astronomy and I tolded me that for processing of astronomical images and data and astrophysical simulation, they use fedora and centos. He also said that when researchers release code for thier situations, they release it under the GPL not BSD.
You see, the GPL is far more academic then BSD. In fact today, Linux is leading the way in research of all fields while BSD is holding back technology and their are bigoted what it comes to anything new.
One takes BSD licensed software and strips this notice out, as a "modification".Originally Posted by BSD 2-clause
A lot of proprietary software uses BSD code without BSD notice, instead having classic "$Name $Revision\n $Corporation (c) $Year. All rights reserved" header.
If source is released, only notice that is kept is
As simple as that.Portions, copyright regents of Berkley.
The copy-paste is in place, there are no limits soever, except this one-liner. If they want, they can modify the portions slightly and remove the one-liner.
Anything past permissive copyleft allows removing permissions, as such they are anarchic licenses (permission level: anarchy). Everything in public domain strips authorship as well.
LGPL are one of the most permissive, since they allow everything except closing original source down.
The most permissive GPL is "All-permissive GPL license". It is more permissive than BSD.
Last edited by brosis; 02-12-2013 at 04:04 AM.
Having gone to all that bother to quote the license, you could probably afford ten seconds to read it:?You can.
One takes BSD licensed software and strips this notice out, as a "modification".Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Those words saying "...provided that the following conditions are met...retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer" specifically prohibit 'stripping the notice out as a modification'.
You didn't even bother to read that page, did you?Where specifically?
Every GPL license on that page, except the GNU All-Permissive License, which is not a copyleft license, lacks the word permissive, while every permissive license (permissive in the sense how everyone except you use the word in that context) is described as permissive.
Just your definition or do you have a source for that?Because there are four categories of permissive licenses, sorted from most restricting to least restricting that is: permissive copyleft, permissive non-copyleft, all-permissive license and public domain.
Actually, yes I did, but the site has not one page that describes the copyleft licenses as permissive. If you find one provide a link.Because you did not search. All GPL licenses are permissive licenses.