Ideal free- and open operating system

**oswaldkelso** · September 1st, 2008

I must admit I'm not sure if this whole thread is a troll fest honey pot. That said one more stir may bring some goodness to the top.

The main reason gnu did'nt use a bsd kernel was the legal squawbling going on at the time over bsd. Linus has described licensing Linux under the GPL as the "best thing I ever did." If the bsd law suit had been done and dusted no one would have ever heard the word Linux. I don't know if I like having a linux kernel or if it's the best thing since sliced bread, but there is no doubt that GNU would not have stopped. Hurd or some other better or worse kernel technology would have taken over. IMHO it is the licence that secures the gnu/linux future nothing else.

Basically the gpl is about sharing code, the BSD is about giving code . But as I understand it, that given code only has to include the source code if under the gpl? If under BSD code is used in a a propriatory application then the code maybe locked.

So if an application is bsd licenced only, anyone can take that code and add it to their application, hideing the source (if they chose). But if a gpled application takes the bsd code it must show the source code, because that is a requirment of the gpl.

If that application contains any gpl'ed code then only the bsd cde can be removed, with out releasing the source. If any gpl'ed but not bsd code is included the whole source must be provided.

I respect the BSD license as I try to respect others also. If you write the code you have every right to license it under what ever license you choose. But as we see if you ever read the MS EUL some license are better than others.

There are cases where the BSD license maybe preferable over the gpl (you would not want your banks security software released under the gpl). And as I stated GNU would have probably used the bsd kernel (and license) were it not for the legal goings on of the time. Though no doubt all new code would have been gpl'd. I am really grateful to all the bsd coders and codes we can use. But for free as in libre software proliferation IMHO the gpl is best.

I would suggest if users don't like license or EUA that an application or distro is using, then don't use it. You know it's the right and moral thing to do. Just search the license and remove any offending stuff. Don't forget to post your a picture of your desktop afterward.

**howlingmadhowie** · September 1st, 2008

Originally Posted by karellen

you have all mixed up. if I give you something as a present (source code under the BSD license) does that mean you are stealing it from me?

you don't like any license besides GPL, that's fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion, but don't come here and pretend that's the only (and right) way to do things
and btw, for your own personal info, they are many many free (as in beer) proprietary applications out there that have not been sued of taken over by MS or IBM

i do not dislike free software licenses without copyleft provisions. i do however find them technically not as good as free software licenses with copyleft provisions. steal is probably the wrong word. let's settle for 'take'.

the problem with free software licenses without copyleft provisions is that software can be taken and contributing back to the community is not necessary. if everybody was nice, this wouldn't be a problem. as it is, there is a real danger that a large company will take the code and then, for example, patent parts of it, so making it illegal for the original project to continue. to avoid this, some sort of patent protection really should be built into the license.

**karellen** · September 1st, 2008

the problem with free software licenses without copyleft provisions is that software can be taken and contributing back to the community is not necessary. if everybody was nice, this wouldn't be a problem. as it is, there is a real danger that a large company will take the code and then, for example, patent parts of it, so making it illegal for the original project to continue. to avoid this, some sort of patent protection really should be built into the license.

finally something we can agree on

. as for closing a license, I believe that's what Apple did with the Unix kernel in Nextstep, thus creating Mac OS X

**original_jamingrit** · September 1st, 2008

+1 for oswaldkelso

It's all about the preferences and goals of the developers, users, and re-developers; sometimes the GPL suits the situation better than a BSD like license, sometimes it's the other way around.

Any person talking about fsf as a cult is really just someone who has preferences and goals that are different, it's as simple as that. And it's speaking off-topic; the original query of the OP (whether there were any OS freer than Ubuntu) was solved many pages ago. I think the answer was either gnewsense or openbsd.