Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:35582 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1891
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!werple.apana.org.au!hal9000!monty!newton
From: newton@monty.apana.org.au (Mark Newton)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes
References: <D87-MAL.93Apr19230114@byse.nada.kth.se>
Message-ID: <93042311019@monty.apana.org.au>
Organization: APANA South Australia - State mail hub
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 93 23:29:35 +0930
Lines: 30
d87-mal@byse.nada.kth.se (Mats Löfkvist) writes:
> In article <C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
> "Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its
> distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it.
>
> YOU choose to let the FSF control the distribution of your code when you
> decide to use FSF tools, code or whatever that makes the GPL to apply to
> your code.
... and that's just the point.
This entire debate started because of a decision to remove GPL'ed code
from the 386bsd kernel. You are correct: The programmer decides whether
or not to use it, and the official 386bsd developers have chosen not to.
> Why is it so hard to understand that code from the FSF comes with a licence
> you have to accept if you want to use it?
The argument started when someone claimed that they /didn't/ want to use
it.
Do you understand this thread at all?
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, newton@monty.apana.org.au
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-8-3224071 --------------- Data: +61-8-3222915 -----