On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:20:24PM -0800, Spugee wrote:
> This is a very interesting story.. but hasnt that happened before ?
> Like OSX is based upon BSD right ? and OSX is proprietary right ?
> how'd they do that ? Who'd they pay off ? or is it just a matter of no
> one has backing to go after them ?
MacOS X is actually Mach, not BSD. Plus the BSD license allows precisely
what you're suggesting Apple has done. Plus the BSD parts of MacOS X are
freely available (and there is even a GNU Darwin project based on them).
> I agree that free is a very good price and I believe in free ( and alslo
> the larger tennants that are the backbone of the GPL ) But if I have to
> have something and cant get it for free Im forced to bow to the
> monopoly, or the comglomerate , or something. .. I dont like it, but I
> accept it out of nesessity.
The point isn't supposed to be the price tag. In fact, I would argue that
if paying for a piece of software gets you access to a set of forums and a
patch repository where people who have paid for their license to the
software can freely exchange ideas, patches, improvements, and even
divergences from the upstream code, that is still free software.
To my knowledge, that isn't generally done except with hugely expensive
software with yearly license agreements and massive contracts/NDAs. Java
stuff is a great example of how that could actually work. Python not so
much because the .pyc files are version-dependent.
--
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act,
but a habit."
-- Aristotle
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
