is bsd better than linux?

[Sorivenul]

You don't understand the question if you see a flame war here. It's obvious on the other hand already since you seem to support the BSD side of things. The OP asked a question and I answered it.

1.) The original question is subjective, as is the matter of licensing preferences.
2.) Don't assume I support one side. I support choice. I also support comprehensive education. If somebody wants to use the GPL, that's fine. If somebody wants to use the BSD license, that's fine. Let them learn about both.
3.) I don't see how restricting the subjective matter of OS preference to another subjective matter like licensing answers any question.

Also, from the GNU website, see the Licensing Compatibility List. The 3-clause BSD license and 2-clause BSD license (FreeBSD license) are GPL-compatible.

[cardinals_fan]

The original question has very much to do with licenses. BSD uses a "weaker" free software license than Linux, which uses the "strong" GNU GPL copyleft free sotware license. Those two are incompatible, thus you must choose one. I much prefer the GNU GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

Why exactly do you say that they are incompatible? I run lots of GPL software on my NetBSD system, and lots of BSD-licensed software on my SliTaz system.

[glotz]

@ soverinul Ok, you got me confused now. Are you a lawyer by any chance? I mean, how can a copyleft license be compatible with a non-copyleft license? Doesn't that make copyleft moot?

@cardinals_fan See the Licensing Compatibility List link soverinul posted above.

I don't know about you guys but freedom is the reason that convinced me to start using free software. No, this is not an insult, it's just a statement.

[cardinals_fan]

@ soverinul Ok, you got me confused now. Are you a lawyer by any chance? I mean, how can a copyleft license be compatible with a non-copyleft license? Doesn't that make copyleft moot?

I can't speak to the legalese in the link, but there is a difference between compatible use and compatible development. I can use GPL'd software on BSD system without having it be GPL-licensed, and vice-versa. What I can't do is modify the GPL code and distribute it as BSD-licensed.

I don't know about you guys but freedom is the reason that convinced me to start using free software. No, this is not an insult, it's just a statement.

I want to have the source available. That's all I need.

[Sorivenul]

@ soverinul Ok, you got me confused now. Are you a lawyer by any chance? I mean, how can a copyleft license be compatible with a non-copyleft license? Doesn't that make copyleft moot?

I'm not a lawyer; I enjoy reading.

• What does it mean to say two licenses are compatible?
• What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL?"
• On why the original BSD license is incompatible, while newer versions are.
• Permissive vs. Copyleft licensing
• More on License Compatibility

Freedom is a large part of what convinced me to join this world as well. Definitions of this term may vary.

Peace.

[handy]

Thus, the BSD Linux emulation layer.

Is it correct that that layer still does not allow all Linux kernel based software to run on it. Or at least run on it as well as it runs on Linux?

I am asking the question out of ignorance. I know that I could not get Flash, Cedega & Wine to work on PC-BSD a couple of years ago. Things have very likely changed since then. Hopefully?

[kk0sse54]

I don't know about you guys but freedom is the reason that convinced me to start using free software. No, this is not an insult, it's just a statement.

When referring to freedom in a software sense, I can almost assure you that OpenBSD is much more free than whatever linux distro you are currently using.

[glotz]

@ soverinul Ok, you got me confused now. Are you a lawyer by any chance? I mean, how can a copyleft license be compatible with a non-copyleft license? Doesn't that make copyleft moot?

[*]Permissive vs. Copyleft licensing

For the ones also puzzled by my question and not so keen to read, here's the relevant passage. To make a long story short, the answer is one way compatibility.

Quote: Code licensed under a permissive free software licence, such as the BSD licence, can be incorporated into copylefted (e.g. GPL'd) projects. Such code is thus "GPL-compatible". There is no need to securing the consent of the original authors. In contrast, code under the GPL cannot be relicensed under the BSD licence without securing the consent of all copyright holders. Thus the two licences are compatible, but the combination as a whole must be distributed under the terms of the GPL, not the permissive licence.