On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 10:22 +0000, Dieter wrote:
> I see everyone is missing the point of the GPL.
> 
> Go read up on *why* RMS created the GPL.
> 
> If I as a customer have a choice between a product
> that provides documentation and source code vs
> a product that does not provide documentation and
> source code, guess which product I am going to buy?
> 
> The reason to use NetBSD (or any *BSD) in a product
> instead of Linux isn't the BSD license vs the GPL,
> it is because *BSD is a better version of Unix
> than Linux.  The BSD license may allow you to
> keep your sources closed, but that is just going
> to lose you customers.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of commercial
> products out there based on Linux, dispite the alleged
> disadvantages of the GPL.

And that's because Linux is fashionable, and they know that by
mentioning Linux, they'll win a lot of customers.

>   They list the source code
> availability as a feature.  It is a selling point.

Nothing stops them from using BSD and later distributing the sources.
They can still use that "selling point".  Plus they can generally
(with few exceptions) license their changes under the GPL (which is
impossible the other way around).

Sorry, but I don't see how the GPL is better in this sense.

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/