From owner-freebsd-advocacy Wed Apr 18 0:30:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (mta02-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.42]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB86B37B424; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:30:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scott.mitchell@mail.com) Received: from lungfish.ntlworld.com ([62.253.151.79]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20010418073019.KJYD290.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@lungfish.ntlworld.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:30:19 +0100 Received: (from scott@localhost) by lungfish.ntlworld.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03651; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:29:41 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from scott) Message-ID: <20010418082941.16321@localhost> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:29:41 +0100 From: Scott Mitchell To: John Baldwin , David Johnson Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, mij@osdn.com Subject: Re: Windriver, Slackware and FreeBSD References: <3ADCF592.8C695855@acuson.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89i In-Reply-To: ; from John Baldwin on Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:09:35PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 2.2.6-RELEASE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:09:35PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 18-Apr-01 David Johnson wrote: > > It's more than just not liking the GPL. I don't like the GPL. I think it > > sucks. But mere mentioning of the differences between the BSD and GPL > > licenses is bizarre. My biggest problem with Windriver's GPL statements > > is one of attitude. They bought the *rights* to BSD/OS, so they can do > > whatever they want with it, regardless of its licensing. If they had > > said "we're going to use FreeBSD because of its licensing", that would > > have been well and good. But instead they said "we're going to buy the > > rights to BSD/OS because of its licensing." That just doesn't make > > sense. BSD/OS is not under the BSD license, and FreeBSD is not up for > > sale. > > > > Windriver's actions had nothing at all to do with licensing, but a lot > > to do with casting fear, uncertaintly and doubt upon their Linux > > competitors. > > No, that is incorrect. WindRiver (not WinDriver or Windriver ) > does plan on using at least some FreeBSD technologies in some shape or > another. As they said in their statement, many of the modifications are > in the kernel, and they don't want to open up the source of VxWorks or > Tornado to their competitors, so the BSD license is a bit more to their > liking than the GPL. Please stop spreading FUD. There are some other > issues at hand as well, but suffice it so say that WindRiver is > legitimately interested in BSD moreso than Linux at least partially due > to licensing issues. But WindRiver didn't need to *buy* anything in order to use FreeBSD technologies in their products. That's the whole point of the licence, right? Like David says, the licencing of the BSD/OS code is irrelevant. Of course they also bought some key FreeBSD developers as part of the deal, which will clearly be to their benefit in integrating the BSD technology with their own stuff. Scott -- =========================================================================== Scott Mitchell | PGP Key ID | "Eagles may soar, but weasels Cambridge, England | 0x54B171B9 | don't get sucked into jet engines" scott.mitchell@mail.com | 0xAA775B8B | -- Anon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message