[lkml] BSD-licensed linux fork

Hui Zhou zhouhui at wam.umd.edu
Fri Oct 8 11:40:38 PDT 2004


On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 02:11:00PM -0400, Jason Gurtz wrote:
>On 10/8/2004 13:45, Hui Zhou wrote:
>
>> I personally don't think that's a bad idea. BSD-license is nothing 
>> comparable to M$' purchasing dos, IMHO. The bottom line is it will 
>> never harm the linux in anyway, will it?
>> 
>
>It would be amusing, yes, to see Linux code in MS windows.  Just like you
>can find BSD code in it now :)

So what? Does it kill the fun playing with linux? If one envy the 
profit M$ made, one should not devote to open source at the beginning.
>
>If that's not exploitive and hurtful then I don't know what is.  I can
>also see those nifty hardware wifi/router combos coming out using the
>BSD'd Linux with no source available.  Too bad for the bedroom hacker...

There are plenty of nifty hardware with no source available. For me, a 
non-hacker, am acutually more concerned with the availibility of new 
nifty hardwares to play with, be it closed or open. I even enjoyed 
hacking into closed source productivity, much more difficult, but not 
less fun.
>
>As for the DOS deal, how about asking Gary Kildall about how much that
>mattered?  <http://www.joewein.de/dri.html>

I would think dos has been advanced more after M$ acquired that it 
would if it remained in the hand of Gary Kildall. It never prevented 
Gary Kildall to further develop Dos, just prevent Gary Kildall to 
profit from his development. Linux doesn't have this issue.
>
>Lesson to be learned: a lot matters that--at least at first--doesn't
>appear to.

It is a lesson worth remembering if you are ``Gary Kildall''.

-- 
Hui Zhou



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list