From owner-freebsd-advocacy Tue Jan 9 3:45:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mailbox.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8856D37B402 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:45:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from pcle2.cc.univie.ac.at (pcle2.cc.univie.ac.at [131.130.2.177]) by mailbox.univie.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA34076; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:45:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:45:53 +0100 (CET) From: Lukas Ertl X-X-Sender: To: Dan Langille Cc: Subject: Re: any Linux distros which are not Open Source? In-Reply-To: <200101091131.AAA24507@ducky.nz.freebsd.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Dan Langille wrote: > I'm involved in a thread on nz.comp and someone made this statement: > > "There are commercial forms of Linux that are not open source." The person who said that should give some examples. To me this seems just another piece of FUD. Maybe he thinks about kind of embedded devices, but then the company still has to make the sources available since they are under GPL. > That's a conflict of terms isn't it? Doesn't the GPL require that it be > open source? If it's Linux, it's GPL. If it's GPL, it *must* be open source. lg, le --=20 Lukas Ertl eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at WWW-Redaktion Tel.: (+43 1) 4277-14073 Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID) Fax.: (+43 1) 4277-9140 der Universit=E4t Wien To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message