Rant on BSD vs GPL was [Good ol' BSD vs. GPL]
guninski at guninski.com
Wed Jan 7 00:52:32 PST 2015
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:21:22PM -0600, Dan White wrote:
> On 01/06/15 19:51 +0200, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> >Let me make a rant on BSD vs GPL licenses.
> >It is well known fact that Micro$oft used *BSD TCP stack in earlier
> >versions of their shit. In addition on _old_ versions of windows,
> >grepping for "Berkeley" returned the bsd license in userland, likely
> >in the shit called "ftp.exe".
> >I am not a coder, though have released some non-destructive stuff.
> >If I were a coder, I would have been pissed off if micro$oft
> >profited from my codeZ$ (though a lot a of sheeple don't care about
> My googlefu is failing me, but I recall that Microsoft came to some sort of
> agreement back in the 90s with the Regents of the University of California,
> meaning someone got payed.
I haven't heard of this, though it might be true.
They could have done it legally without paying and BSD license in
their code suggests they might have not paid enough (if any).
BSD Licensed Code in Windows
Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> >If I were a coder, GPL is assumed to guarantee me that shit like m$
> >can't profit from codeZ$.
I agree that m$ profits from linux, but this requires more legal
tricks/sophistication than just legally taking the BSD code.
(My guess is they profit mainly from patents, but this is another
> Dan White
> vi, debian, C, mutt, sysvinit, /usr/local/, su -, and I dress to the right
More information about the cypherpunks