From owner-freebsd-chat Sun May 3 16:30:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA22651 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 16:30:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from hwcn.org (ac199@james.hwcn.org [199.212.94.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA22606 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 16:30:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hoek@hwcn.org) Received: from localhost (ac199@localhost) by hwcn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA06843; Sun, 3 May 1998 19:24:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 19:24:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Vanderhoek To: Nicole cc: Brett Glass , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: InfoWorld Electric: Linux Zealots Trashing FreeBSD, Berkeley In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [X-post to -advocacy removed] On Sun, 3 May 1998, Nicole wrote: > Their agument was that the license would allow someone (like > M$) to take Freebsd and add some propritary stuff to it (like > Front page extensions, active X etc) and sell it without having > to give anything back to the FreeBSD group or even s > tate that it was FreeBSD. I have heard one good argument against the GPL. It is that someone (like M$) can't add innovations (like a good GUI, an embeded toaster product, or daring high-investment product like XiG's server) without being threatened to lose their investment when someone else remarkets the product without contributing to the capital costs. There is no simple "this one is better" answer. I suspect time will give some good hints. A "this one is better" argument is best left for historians. -- Outnumbered? Maybe. Outspoken? Never! tIM...HOEk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message