[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: Which Linux to use?

On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:07:03AM +0530, Rahul Jindal wrote:
>hi guys, van anyone here volunteer to explain in 2-3 sentences the common
>prevelant licences (GPL, BSD, Apache and others) so that junta like me cud
>also make some sense of a lot of things on these walls.

<preacher mode on>
The GPL 
Well the gpl is quite clear. it says,
for Any s/w under the gpl everybody can copy/improve and 
redistribute/give orignal/modified for free /charge for it.

for the improving part to be true every gpl'ed s/w should give 
source in a media or make it avaliable at a comfortable price or 
location viz ftp.

The word "free" in the title of the Free Software Foundation refers
to "freedom," not "zero dollars."
0. freedom to run the program
1. freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs,
   (source code is a precondition for that)
2. freedom to redistribute copies of the program (to help your neighbour)
3. freedome to improve and release the improvements to the public.

Anyone can charge any price for GPL-covered software that they want to.
However, in practice, the freedom enforced by the GPL leads to low prices,
because you can always get the software for less money from someone else,
because everyone has the right to resell or give away GPL-covered software.

Well whats mine is yours and what yours is yours.

Bsd says man We've made my thing and We are making it if you 
want it take it but We won't take your improvements unless
and untill We feel like it and any one can take your improvements
and make it close source or do what ever they like to do with it.
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the apache copyright notice,
2. Redistributions in binary form must also retain it

you have both apache binary and source but if u do anything/changes with it
you can not call it apache.

Thats pretty much it.

Open Source
terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: 
. Free Redistribution
. Source Code
. Allow Derived Works
. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
	The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form
       only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files"
. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software

What sucks with opensource is that it is a broad rule 
it also respects sucking lisences like QT and Netscape
that alow no freedom at all

They say it leaves the philosophy and geek tub thumping behind and 
does marketing but it actully makes things more complex,

putting freebies(netscape) and free s/w (emacs) under one broad term 
it leaves the user bowled.

I think stallman is too philosophical but I also know QT and linux-2.4
are two things so calling both just "open source" is not my style.

</preacher mode off>

hope this does the trick
---end quoted text---

Violence is a sword that has no handle -- you have to hold the blade.
 Pankaj Kaushal <pankaj@xxxxxxx>
 Proud to use GNU <www.gnu.org>