Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:17:42 -0700 From: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> To: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <3B40F306.E09332D3@acuson.com> References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com> <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
j mckitrick wrote: > So what you are saying, then, is that 'Free Software' in the FSF definition > is not just GPL'ed, but also has the copyright signed over to the FSF so > they can 'insure' that the code will remain forever GPL'ed? If so, that is > damn scary. The FSF only requires transfering ownership to the FSF in cases of official *GNU* software. Any software under the BSD license, no matter who holds the copyright, is considered Free by the FSF. The goal of the FSF in urging people to use the GPL is not to protect the software. Microsoft could do all sorts of horrible things to their copy of FreeBSD, but your copy and mine will still be there untouched. Instead, the goal of the FSF is to eventually make *ALL* software Free Software. The GPL helps in this goal because all derivatives have to be under the GPL as well. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B40F306.E09332D3>