On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:41:23AM -0400, Bob McConnell wrote: > On Behalf Of Chad Perrin > >On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> Unga wrote: > >> > >> >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it > just the > >> >license, then that's fine. I prefer the BSD versions of diff, etc. > when > >> >available. > >> > >> You are asking the wrong questions: why did GNU write their own > version > >> of cmp? FreeBSD's dates to 1987. > > > > Y'know -- that's a really good question. > > The answer is simple. The BSD license does not guarantee freedom as > defined by RMS. > > * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). > * The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to > your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition. > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor > (freedom 2). > * The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements > to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). > Access to the source code is a precondition. > > For example, Microsoft uses many of the TCP applications and drivers > from BSD, but will not allow access to their source code as required by > freedoms 1 and 3. > > Bob McConnell >
The BSD license -is- a free software license as defined by the FSF. It is not copyleft like the GPL, but it is satisfies the four essential freedoms. RMS agrees. frase
pgpLZfwD677i8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
