PDA

View Full Version : SkyOS, GPL, Mint and Windows.



djbsteart1
March 28th, 2008, 04:50 PM
After reading this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=736828) and various bets of the GPL license, aswell as hearing/reading that Microsoft has compied some of Mints network code I am in confusion.
As anything that is uner GPL must stay under GPL how have Microsoft and SkyOS managed to use this code.
From reading the GPL, it seems that if some GPL'ed software is copied and modified for some other distro or what ever, then this derivitive must be under GPL. The reason for this is obvious, it keeps everything open source. This is why the BSD's cannot use many of the Linux apps as they have a different license.
So as SkyOS and Windows are not under GPL then hve they managed to use this code? For SkyOS I can understand why he has needed to use the code, but with Windows, I guess its what you expect, something is better then their own, so lets use that instead.
This is all based on the fact that SkyOS and Microsoft did infact use the code, but either way, the fact that it is in this community should be enough for debate and learning more about GPL.
Enlighten us..........

Ozor Mox
March 28th, 2008, 04:58 PM
I don't think there is any proof that either SkyOS or Windows use GPL code, but if they did, they would indeed be guilty of copyright infringement. However, this doesn't mean that they don't, since proving it is naturally going to be very difficult, as they are closed source applications and therefore only they know unless required by law to reveal some of their code.

BSD licensed code is a different matter of course, as annoying as it is, Microsoft or SkyOS or any other proprietary software project could use it freely, but that's the license the developers chose for their code so that's that.

I prefer the GPL, since while its restrictions can seem a bit harsh, they are 100% necessary in my opinion. How annoying it would be if Microsoft or others could take all the hard work that's been put into GNU and Linux to use as their own.

cprofitt
March 28th, 2008, 05:09 PM
If BSD did not license their code with the BSD license there would be no Mac OS X.

drascus
March 28th, 2008, 05:34 PM
If you really suspect that they are using GPL code and not releasing those apps under GPL then you should get intouch with the FSF lawyers about possible compliance suits. please see: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/ it might clear up issue or you can write to them for more information.

djbsteart1
March 28th, 2008, 05:55 PM
It me that said that GPL'ed code was being used but if i had proof i would have submitted something already.

As for Apples OSX, even if BSD used GPL, Apple would still have created OSX and as they only use FreeBSD's hernel, only Darwine would have been under PDL, or m I wrong here. Either way Apple could be a huge amount worse, at least Darwine is still open, but then again there isn't a BSD version of any of Apples programs, so they havn't really given anything back.

GPL is openly restrictive would be a better description of it. It does a very good job of being open to people who will in general better the Foss community but not to anyone who wont.
It is a shame that the BSD's an't use any of the code under GPL, as a large amount of the code that is now under GPL originally came from the BSD's.