Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.portal.ca!cynic.portal.ca!not-for-mail From: cjs@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: 4 Feb 1997 11:10:56 -0800 Organization: Internet Portal Services, Inc. Lines: 30 Message-ID: <5d81k0$8j4@cynic.portal.ca> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <E504AI.Jsu@bigbird.telly.org> <32F54717.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <5Pp9y0gTzz1B091yn@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cynic.portal.ca Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:157539 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2445 In article <5Pp9y0gTzz1B091yn@ibm.net>, Mouth of the South <mouth@ibm.net> wrote: >I would not plan to reinvest any money into BSD simply because I expect >GPL to prevail and Linux to proliferate in the long run, even though BSD >may be technically superior today. Although BSD may have been the basis >for my success, why should I repay any debt to a dying movement? If the GPL made software so superior, why has this softare not overrun Berkeley-type-licenced software already? It's had more than a decade to do so. Let's face it; the GPL does not appear to do any better a job of encouraging freely distributable software than the Berkeley-type licence does. All the GNU licence does is prevent a certain type of commercial exploitation, which is at best neutral, and at worst a handicap. The most prevalant argument for the GNU licence seems to be that those who wish to change software and resell it for a profit are `bad guys.' This is not borne out in my experience; I think that the BSDi group, for example, has made a positive contribution to the free software world in many ways. If they can feed themselves on what they've done, so much the better. cjs -- Curt Sampson cjs@portal.ca Info at http://www.portal.ca/ Internet Portal Services, Inc. Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.