Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:41:23 -0400 From: "Bob McConnell" <rvm@CBORD.com> To: "Chad Perrin" <perrin@apotheon.com>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Why not GNU cmp? Message-ID: <FF8482A96323694490C194BABEAC24A0034D34CD@Email.cbord.com> In-Reply-To: <20080925084825.GA2728@kokopelli.hydra> References: <935484.39759.qm@web57008.mail.re3.yahoo.com><48DB3F1A.5060005@FreeBSD.org> <20080925084825.GA2728@kokopelli.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Behalf Of Chad Perrin >On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Unga wrote: >>=20 >> >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it just the=20 >> >license, then that's fine. I prefer the BSD versions of diff, etc. when=20 >> >available.=20 >>=20 >> You are asking the wrong questions: why did GNU write their own version=20 >> of cmp? FreeBSD's dates to 1987. >=20 > Y'know -- that's a really good question. The answer is simple. The BSD license does not guarantee freedom as defined by RMS. * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition. For example, Microsoft uses many of the TCP applications and drivers from BSD, but will not allow access to their source code as required by freedoms 1 and 3. Bob McConnell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FF8482A96323694490C194BABEAC24A0034D34CD>