[GNUz] O/S compare

[Richard Tindall]

Ok, thanks Jim & Dale. I'll have to keep thinking on this..

But taking Dale's (shorter) points first:

Dale DuRose wrote:

>Anyway if you are meaning what i'm thinking.
>
>*BSD should be yes for: source - freedom to legacy open
>  
>
That's true in that it is always a voluntary option for a contributor to 
release product open. But s/he may never insist that succeeding 
contributors must (or should). So there is no freedom to insist your 
product stays open, as a legacy.

Jim's pointed out - and I can see that in practise - the product 
(community) tends to stay open.

So this is only a difference as to whether an 'opening' mechanism is 
required, to keep continuing development, and which - tradition (BSD), 
or licensing law (GNU)?

Collectively there is the most insurance.

(i.e. one can choose to work with both models / ..as I understand 
matters thus far..)

>On 11/3/05, Dale DuRose <mafiageek@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>What do you mean by this?
>>
>>source - freedom to close
>>    
>>
- Are you allowed to close the source of your derivative product, and 
must you pass that freedom on to others?

>>source - freedom to legacy open
>>    
>>
- Are you allowed to insist that derivative source stays open?

It seems to me (through the charting) that it is a direct swap-choice of 
risk, to Open fully or 'Freely' (restricting the development choices), 
although the goal of (guaranteeing?) a free nix for all to use is the 
same (Berkeley's, Stallman's, and Torvalds' intent).

I'm looking for ways to contribute to this goal, that support both 
methodolgies somehow equally (it seems fair / a risk reduction).

Thanks for the input guys, including last night's workshop.

- Rik