From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 25 12:42:59 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644D91065687 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:42:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rvm@CBORD.com) Received: from smssmtp.cbord.com (mx1.cbord.com [24.39.174.11]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E368FC1F for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:42:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rvm@CBORD.com) X-AuditID: ac1f0165-000005280000044c-03-48db87771396 Received: from Email.cbord.com ([10.1.1.100]) by smssmtp.cbord.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:43:34 -0400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:41:23 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080925084825.GA2728@kokopelli.hydra> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Why not GNU cmp? Thread-Index: Acke7HrsVPtbZPCsRmeJm+V1rDY46QAHkfYg References: <935484.39759.qm@web57008.mail.re3.yahoo.com><48DB3F1A.5060005@FreeBSD.org> <20080925084825.GA2728@kokopelli.hydra> From: "Bob McConnell" To: "Chad Perrin" , X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Cc: Subject: RE: Why not GNU cmp? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:42:59 -0000 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