Yeah, great. Except companies will have more incentive to release things that aren't ready so they can claim to be "newer" than the competitor's product.
Ok let's examine this hypothetical situation. I think we have as a given MS is not going to be releasing source code to their OS. Also, you've said people would want the extras offered by MS over the free alternative. Thus it comes down to do we want A) BSD stability combined with "bells and whistles". or B) MS instability combined with "bells and whistles"
Personally, I believe A is better for the user. And guess what, the BSD code is still available. Once its released and someone, somewhere keeps a copy of it, its ALWAYS free to use and to modify.
Umm, would it be so horrible if MS did use Linux code? Maybe it would improve their products. If a company is dead set on closed source, the GPL isn't going to change its mind. They will simply implement a (probably inferior) copy of the open source product. One of the BSD advocates main arugments is that good code should be shared and used, even in proprietary products, as it improves software for everyone. The BSD people are not nearly so open vs. closed software. They simply see open source as a way to get good software.
That's where the BSD License differs with the GPL. I doesn't try to force a morality on you. If you want to use the code, you decide if you release your changes back. RedHat is a company with a heart and gives back to the community, they didn't need the GPL to force them to. The same is true for Walnut Creek's support of FreeBSD.
In addition, Redhat is not going to make money for long simply selling Linux. Mandrake is good example of how easy it is to get undercut. Redhat's only chance at profitability is to use its brandname get support contracts and the like.
CheapBytes is perhaps the only example of a business method that has a chance at long-term profitability simply selling Linux CDs.
When BSDI or Apple decided to use the BSD code in their products, did the FreeBSD CVS tree get deleted? I don't think so. The user looses nothing with the BSD license.
The BSD license gives the user all the freedoms of the GPL, plus the ability to use it in their own code.
(BTW I like and would be happy to use either license in my own project, as I use both Linux and BSD)
Mutt was not developed by ESR, you are thinking of fetchmail. It was developed by Michael Elkins, who is the one who said "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.", not ESR.
Well people often point out that one of BSD's problems is its fragmentation but the different BSDs are probably closer from a layout and design perspective than most Linux distributions.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, great. Except companies will have more incentive to release things that aren't ready so they can claim to be "newer" than the competitor's product.
Voting began before Bradley dropped out of the race. In fact, there were 3 possible choices.
Ok let's examine this hypothetical situation. I think we have as a given MS is not going to be releasing source code to their OS. Also, you've said people would want the extras offered by MS over the free alternative.
Thus it comes down to do we want
A) BSD stability combined with "bells and
whistles".
or
B) MS instability combined with "bells and whistles"
Personally, I believe A is better for the user. And guess what, the BSD code is still available. Once its released and someone, somewhere keeps a copy of it, its ALWAYS free to use and to modify.
Umm, would it be so horrible if MS did use Linux code? Maybe it would improve their products. If a company is dead set on closed source, the GPL isn't going to change its mind. They will simply implement a (probably inferior) copy of the open source product. One of the BSD advocates main arugments is that good code should be shared and used, even in proprietary products, as it improves software for everyone. The BSD people are not nearly so open vs. closed software. They simply see open source as a way to get good software.
That's where the BSD License differs with the GPL.
I doesn't try to force a morality on you. If you want to use the code, you decide if you release your changes back. RedHat is a company with a heart and gives back to the community, they didn't need the GPL to force them to. The same is true for Walnut Creek's support of FreeBSD.
In addition, Redhat is not going to make money for long simply selling Linux. Mandrake is good example of how easy it is to get undercut. Redhat's only chance at profitability is to use its brandname get support contracts and the like.
CheapBytes is perhaps the only example of a business method that has a chance at long-term profitability simply selling Linux CDs.
When BSDI or Apple decided to use the BSD code in their products, did the FreeBSD CVS tree get deleted? I don't think so. The user looses nothing with the BSD license.
The BSD license gives the user all the freedoms of the GPL, plus the ability to use it in their own code.
(BTW I like and would be happy to use either license in my own project, as I use both Linux and BSD)
Mutt was not developed by ESR, you are thinking of fetchmail. It was developed by Michael Elkins, who is the one who said "All mail clients suck. This one just sucks less.", not ESR.
From the X(1) manpage from XFree86 3.3.3:
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
It does seem to say that this is version 11, no?
Ahem but I believe X is up version 11 release 6 not 4.0.
Not everyone uses XFree86 and precision is required when referring to versions.
Depends on how you define "Office Apps". I certainly have had a lot of success using LyX or just writing LaTeX in Emacs for word processing.
Well people often point out that one of BSD's problems is its fragmentation but the different BSDs are probably closer from a layout and design perspective than most Linux distributions.
The BSD's used direct 386BSD code and have since integrated later CSRG releases.
Linus used Minix to get the original Linux kernel started but it certainly isn't based on any Minix code.