[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: L4-hurd discuss

From: Benno
Subject: Re: L4-hurd discuss
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:07:01 +1000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 03:38:08 +0800, Neil Santos wrote:
>On 20:45 23/06/05, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>> > Isn't this just a bit of an understatement?  UIM, more often than not,
>> > Linus and RMS aren't even looking in the same general direction.
>> Fine, it's irrelevant either way though.
>It is, isn't it?
>> > As for OpenSolaris, well...  If its source would
>> > be made available using a free versioning system, stayed away from
>> > including proprietary hardware drivers, and was licensed under any of
>> > the licenses the FSF considers free, then it *will* fit the spirit of
>> > the FSF's goals better than Linux.
>> That's a big if.  Wouldn't it be better to just use a BSD kernel?
>> Debian has demonstrated this is feasible.
>As you've noticed, it *is* feasible; it has proven to be feasible,
>because efforts at coming up with a GNU/FreeBSD system is already well
>under way.  A GNU/Linux system is also feasible; the fact that
>hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals and groups
>already use a derivative of the base GNU/Linux system is more than
>enough proof.
>Personally, I don't want a GNU/*BSD system, or, at least, I'd still
>like a purely GNU system.  It's simple enough, really: I'm selfish.  I
>don't want proprietary software developers to keep on doing what they
>have for decades: taking BSD-licensed software and using it to enhance
>their own.  I only want to share with those who'll share with me, as

Umm, you do realise that L4::Pistachio is made available to you under
a BSD-style license not the GPL right?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]