Hi David, GPL or GNU/Linux as a whole doesn't necessary reflects the only "Free Software". There are string of OS and licenses that come under the umbrella. Particularly, BSD variants kernel and the BSD license.
GPL places lot of restriction, for example, It places restrictions on derivative work, whether in whole or in part. This essentially means that the GPL infects, like a hereditary condition or in other word GPL'ed programs must also be GPL'ed! There are modified version of GPL like GPL linking exception, Lesser GPL (LGPL) ease some of the serious viral infection clause. The BSD license fits perfectly in both proprietary commercial and FOSS world. In certain extend, It gives more freedom to proprietary gangs. Take an example of Berkeley TCP/IP, used in lots of commercial product including Windows. Proprietary Industry incorporate it for sole purpose thus saving time and increasing productivity. Similar example with Mach/FeeBSD which MacOSX is using. The good part of BSD being friendly with proprietary world is it nowhere place any restrictions on derivative works. The license restrictions are placed only on the original work. I do agree there are some serious caveats /loophole in BSD, makes a bad choice for hardcore FOSSian. However it still maintain a bridge between proprietary and opensource world whereas GPL divides two different realm and waging war of ideology. In BSD, both are happy and healthy. Interestingly, we have Mozilla Public License which exploits both BSD and GPL. A hybrid sort of. We all like to make two best license in one. Now, the best I can say is MPL. Its upto individual to select or create new License. There are so many licenses. The sole purpose of OpenSource License is to share ideas, knowledge and protect the freedom. -- Sarose On May 17, 5:50 pm, "Prasanna David G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Prajwal Tuladhar > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is MySQL not an open source database after acquisition by Sun??? > > >http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2008/05/14/mysql-free-software-but-not-open... > > The above article is very misleading and confusing. > > GNU GPL - which is the Free Software license is much superior than > other Open Source licences in that GPL makes sure that the software > remains free for ever and no one can curtail the freedom of even its > derivatives. > > But, on the other hand, Open Source initiative was started to please > proprietary software makers. A software licensed under some open > source licence can be taken by a company, modified and the modified > version can become proprietary product of that company. This can > never happen with GPL. The BSD license is one example of a Open > Source license. > > The author of the above article doesn't seem to understand what "Free > Software" means and what GPL is. Nowadays, these terms are very > loosely used. No problem as long as they are used to promote > Free/Open Source Software. But, when someone tried to compare between > these two, he/she better be aware of the fact. > > For example, the Linux kernel is licensed under the GNU GPL. In my > opinion, no problem if we call Linux as open source as long as our aim > is to promote it - it is easier for lay people (non technical) to > understand the term open source compare to Free software. But, as > technical people, if we want to use the correct terminology, then we > should use the term "Free Software" to refer to Linux. > > regards, > Prasanna David --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ FOSS Nepal mailing list: [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
