Re: [OT?] BSD licensing
Re: [OT?] BSD licensing
- Subject: Re: [OT?] BSD licensing
- From: Jacob Shaw <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:11:27 -0700
Hi Adam,
There are actually a lot of BSD-derived operating systems that are, in fact,
not BSD licensed. The current state of BSD licensing seems to be "here's the
source, do with it what you want".
Many folks have used BSD-licensed code in closed source products:
- Juniper uses FreeBSD as the foundation of their JUNOS for their routers
- Apple uses BSD in duuuh :)
- Several firewall vendors use *BSD in their internet appliances
- Microsoft apparently uses a lot of FreeBSD networking code in Windows 2000
While this may or may not be considered to be "stealing" by GPL advocates
(FTR, I like the GPL), for folks who favor the BSD license, it's all a part
of life's plan.
From what I have seen in my code browsings the BSD licenses are intact in
the appropriate places in the Darwin source code. For a random example, take
a look at /usr/include/signal.h.
Hope that helps,
Jacob
On 4/24/02 9:40 AM, "Adam Atlas" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
It seems that Darwin is one of the few (the only?) BSD-derived
>
operating system that does not use the BSD License. I downloaded the
>
4.4BSD-Lite sources (Darwin is based on 4.4BSD-Lite, right?) and it
>
comes with a copy of the BSD License. And the BSD License says that any
>
product derived from it, in source or binary form, must include that
>
license. How did Apple get around that?
>
>
I though 4.4BSD-Lite was in the public domain, but I guess I'm wrong.
_______________________________________________
darwin-kernel mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwin-kernel
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.