Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 3 of 3
I have read the differences between Linux license and the BSD license. From my understanding both are open source but BSD license allows one to take the software and do ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8

    FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD License Question


    I have read the differences between Linux license and the BSD license. From my understanding both are open source but BSD license allows one to take the software and do whatever they want with it.

    I have also read that many enjoy different aspects of the BSDs but do not prefer the license. An example of how a company can do what they want with BSD is when Apple used the FreeBSD kernel but made it close source after modifications.

    Why hasn't anyone taken FreeBSD or one of the others and made a GPLv3 version of it? If you are free to do what you want with it, I am confused why someone hasn't made a new BSD distro (removed the labels from FreeBSD) and made the entire thing GPLv3.

    It just surprises me if this is possible because of the open nature of the BSD license why we do not see many BSDs with rebranded and using the Linux license. If it can be made close source, I am sure it could be made GPLv3.

  2. #2
    Trusted Penguin Irithori's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Munich
    Posts
    3,378
    I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on legal possibilities.
    But from a technical pov:
    You would essentially create a fork. So a) you need people to maintain it and b) at least follow up the upstream code changes and/or modify them.
    It is also safe to say, that the community would complain. Loudly. So the acceptance factor would be very low.
    You must always face the curtain with a bow.

  3. #3
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Irithori View Post
    I am not a lawyer, so I cannot comment on legal possibilities.
    But from a technical pov:
    You would essentially create a fork. So a) you need people to maintain it and b) at least follow up the upstream code changes and/or modify them.
    It is also safe to say, that the community would complain. Loudly. So the acceptance factor would be very low.
    Thanks for the response. It would be possible if I am understanding you correctly but may be frowned upon. What is funny though is that is what their license allows, the very reason someone would want a version to be under GPL. Complaining would be ironic considering that is what is boasted as a good thing about that license, the ability to do whatever you want with it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •