Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 09:02:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek <ac199@hwcn.org> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: don morrison <dmorrisn@u.washington.edu>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Draft of Nader letter Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980615085617.212B-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199806150248.UAA06154@lariat.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Brett Glass wrote: > The description of FreeBSD said it was in the "public domain" (which > is simply wrong) and described it as "non-copylefted" (true, but showing > a bias toward Linux and the GPL). It also equated the "project" with the > OS. The point of the article (at that point) was to praise the mechanisms that have produced competing OSs. I thought the letter was pretty good and fair, actually. We're closer to "public domain" than we are to "copyleft". Neither copyleft nor or license is explained, other than to say that they are both free and threatened by certain predatory practices. How would you have him explain our mix of licenses (which ranges from public domain to GPL)? Besides that, a "FreeBSD license" is mentioned. The intended audience is not stupid and knows that this implies something more complex than "just" p/d. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument. :) -- This .sig is not innovative, witty, or profund. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980615085617.212B-100000>