That would violate the license of the Regents of the University of California, just as putting a BSD licensed on GCC would violate the license of the FSF.
I cannot purchase the rights to dialog. The original author is unknown. But it has a GPL at the top. Looks like I just need to rewrite it myself.
This problem also extends to large GPL'd products. If you own the licensed on xxx.c and xxx.h and roblimo owns abc123.c, def456.c, and cmdrtaco owns 987654321.c, and you won't sell to me, I'm screwed.
These problems are handled by X and BSD licenses and no duplication of effort is required.
FreeBSD is not dying. FreeBSD is growing at a faster rate than Linux is (albeit starting from a smaller user base). It would require some devistating act to kill a project that well managed and controlled. Five years from now, FreeBSD will still be around in a recognizable form and Linux will have split into several different OSes as each vendor tries to control the market.
You've been blinded by brainwashing of the FSF and Richard Stallman. Anyone who has read the GPL can tell you it is even more encumbered than any commercial license. At least with a commercial product, I can purchase rights to redistribute the program without source.
The Berkeley and X licenses are the only truely free licenses in common use.
1. I do. I use FreeBSD and a journaling FS like XFS would really make my day. 2. Why would you want to? 3. Linux users also wouldn't know how to practicaly apply computing resources if you gave them a manual. 4. Who cares? 5. No it cannot, haven't you read the BSD license?
Think about it, why did the same thing happen with Linux at all? BSD was there (and had been for years) when Linux started. All it needed was a few subsystems rewritten out from AT&T and William Jolitz had nearly completed that at the time.
Everyone I know in the military says only the enlisted personel are competent:)
But then again, none are in tech areas. I had no idea how BSD was still being used. I figured there were a great many 4.1-4.4BSD installations floating around just because it ran fine and hasn't been touched in 5+ years. Aside from that, I had no idea.
Ahh, I just read the article. It appears as though our friendly (biased) editor here at Slashdot felt that only Linux deserved mentioning in the blurb.
Linus did not do anything significant this century. Look at Kernighan. Torvalds would be a nobody without him today. The creation of Unix was a far more signifcan event in the history of the computing industry than the creation of Linux was.
Further, it is shown by the poll results how clueless the voters are. Rabin and Elvis before Hitler? Hitler affected far more this century than anyone (possibly excluding Lenin).
I think that if SGI is going to drop Irix, it would be wonderful to see them release portions of their code under a BSD-license, especially since Irix grew out of BSD (and became the first POSIX certified BSD-derived OS).
Slashdot Mirror
As I said to some other idiot, the BSD code cannot be relicensed under the GPL. That is just as illegal as relicensing GPL code under a BSD license.
Sorry, I knew that. I just cut and pasted that list of supported file systems.
That would violate the license of the Regents of the University of California, just as putting a BSD licensed on GCC would violate the license of the FSF.
The fatal flaw with your counter example is that if I wanted the features of package Z, I'd have put them into package Y to begin with :)
I have read the GPL which is exactly why I'd never inflict it on someone else.
And that is exactly why anything I write is under the non-discriminatory BSD license.
lfs is no longer in the FreeBSD source tree. NetBSD has fixed this though, check it out.
I cannot purchase the rights to dialog. The original author is unknown. But it has a GPL at the top. Looks like I just need to rewrite it myself.
This problem also extends to large GPL'd products. If you own the licensed on xxx.c and xxx.h and roblimo owns abc123.c, def456.c, and cmdrtaco owns 987654321.c, and you won't sell to me, I'm
screwed.
These problems are handled by X and BSD licenses and no duplication of effort is required.
It would probably be an excellent way to handle resource forks, however, the GPL will prevent that from ever happening.
You know, FreeBSD will let you maintain multiple partitions within a slice.
FreeBSD is not dying. FreeBSD is growing at a faster rate than Linux is (albeit starting from a smaller user base). It would require some devistating act to kill a project that well managed and controlled. Five years from now, FreeBSD will still be around in a recognizable form and Linux will have split into several different OSes as each vendor tries to control the market.
You've been blinded by brainwashing of the FSF and Richard Stallman. Anyone who has read the GPL can tell you it is even more encumbered than any commercial license. At least with a commercial product, I can purchase rights to redistribute the program without source.
The Berkeley and X licenses are the only truely free licenses in common use.
FreeBSD does not have a journaling FS. FreeBSD does support FFS, MFS, NFS, FAT, VFAT, NTFS, Coda, and ISO9660. None of these are jounraling.
1. I do. I use FreeBSD and a journaling FS like XFS would really make my day. 2. Why would you want to? 3. Linux users also wouldn't know how to practicaly apply computing resources if you gave them a manual. 4. Who cares? 5. No it cannot, haven't you read the BSD license?
It would be great to see the software dual licensed under an unencumbered license so that FreeBSD could include it.
And it is a good idea too.
Think about it, why did the same thing happen with Linux at all? BSD was there (and had been for years) when Linux started. All it needed was a few subsystems rewritten out from AT&T and William Jolitz had nearly completed that at the time.
Everyone I know in the military says only the enlisted personel are competent :)
But then again, none are in tech areas. I had no idea how BSD was still being used. I figured there were a great many 4.1-4.4BSD installations floating around just because it ran fine and hasn't been touched in 5+ years. Aside from that, I had no idea.
Ahh, I just read the article. It appears as though our friendly (biased) editor here at Slashdot felt that only Linux deserved mentioning in the blurb.
When I first read this, I thought the same thing. I am also curious why they do not use one of the BSDs instead, after all, they paid for it.
Does it count that the website contains Javsscript that Netscape 4.61 cannot handle?
Linus did not do anything significant this century. Look at Kernighan. Torvalds would be a nobody without him today. The creation of Unix was a far more signifcan event in the history of the computing industry than the creation of Linux was.
Further, it is shown by the poll results how clueless the voters are. Rabin and Elvis before Hitler? Hitler affected far more this century than anyone (possibly excluding Lenin).
It's been done. I think a masters student at Cornell wrote a C-compiler than generates Java byte-codes for his master's thesis.
I think that if SGI is going to drop Irix, it would be wonderful to see them release portions of their code under a BSD-license, especially since Irix grew out of BSD (and became the first POSIX certified BSD-derived OS).
until it is running BSD?
At the time I said that, I was at "0: Troll".