From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Feb 17 21:09:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA17711 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:09:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from obie.softweyr.ml.org ([199.104.124.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA17705 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:09:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (from wes@localhost) by obie.softweyr.ml.org (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA17000; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:17:13 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:17:13 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199702180517.WAA17000@obie.softweyr.ml.org> From: Wes Peters To: Charles Mott CC: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Charles Mott writes: > I have seen a number of back handed comments towards the GNU public > license. For individualistic (not particularly rational) reasons, I > prefer not to attach the GPL to any piece of free software I write. What > is the complaint that others have with GPL? The major complaint is that it restricts the use of the software extensively. You cannot, for instance, distribute binary-only copies of GPL'ed software. Nor can you sell derivative works of GPL'ed software. The Berkeley licensing is so much less restrictive; if BSD had been GPL'ed, SunOS would never have existed and UNIX would probably have slid quietly by the wayside along with other good operating systems. > That being said, I still have the highest respect for Stallman and the > Free Software Foundation. Ditto. > FreeBSD could not exist were it not for gcc. I'm not so sure about that. GCC is certainly the best freely available C compiler, but it isn't the only one, and probably isn't the only good one. Minix existed for quite some time without GCC, because the creators of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit had the foresight of allowing royalty free binary-only distributions. Quite the opposite of the GPL, actually. ;^) FreeBSD (& NetBSD & OpenBSD & BSDI & Linux) may have grown without GCC, but probably would have required more work on the compiler, which would have ultimately distracted work on the kernel and utilities. > I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't quite a bit > of other GNU software on the FreeBSD cdrom. Some, but FreeBSD people make every effort to not put GPL'ed code into the kernel and/or the essential kernel utilities. It is generally possible to have a running FreeBSD system that does not rely on GPL'ed code unless you need to rebuild the system; then you have to use the compiler. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com