From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jul 14 08:26:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA26775 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ingenieria ([168.176.15.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA26766 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 08:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unalmodem.usc.unal.edu.co by ingenieria (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26569; Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:11:57 -0400 Message-ID: <33CA601A.5169@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 10:21:41 -0700 From: Pedro Giffuni Reply-To: m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co Organization: U. Nacional de Colombia X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel N. Weber II" CC: m230761@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: My opinion about freebsd (fwd) References: <199707140006.UAA26526@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Joel N. Weber II wrote: > > That's just one of the reasons to use FreeBSD and not Linux. Some things > (like the kernel) are better with a Berkeley-like license, and some > things (some apps.) are better with GPL. > > Why would some things be better with the GPL and some with the BSD license? > why should I have restrictions on my libaries? Why should I be forced to give you my sources? Take Emerging Technologies and MOSIX as live examples. > In the free world, if you spend years developing your high quality tool, > and lots of persons will benefit from it, it's only fair that you > receive a part of that benefit. The existance of a GNU license only > forces a good quality in the final products: if you find a free utility > that does all you need you will not buy the commercial version. > > So why shouldn't kernels have the same protection? > FreeBSD has that protection, but it's more elegant. If a vendor gets a very advantageous product, say an LKM, he will voluntarily provide some kernel patches to keep his product compatible with all versions of FreeBSD and therefore lower the cost of support. A commercial competidor may also provide a free implementation to reduce his competitor's gain margin. The GNU license is, in fact, very artificial and hasn't limited the action Big-Bucks (TM). > > windows 95 is usable? I found getting networking to work on it was > much more difficult than getting networking working on Linux... > That's because you use UNIX and it's clones all days...surprise! most people actually use M$-Windows. A company considers win-95 is cheaper than Linux because everyone already knows how to use win-95 and live with it's problems. (I'm speaking only Colombia here, perhaps in the USA everyone uses Linux in their offices but I honestly doubt it) > > But you can't force a person to be free. Not without marketing...and after the marketing they will not be free anyway ;) Pedro.