FreeBSD is Free - Revision history

129.97.246.125: punctuation fix.

2008-10-16T02:07:47Z

punctuation fix.

129.97.246.125: removed inaccuracy about BSD license

2008-10-16T02:07:16Z

removed inaccuracy about BSD license

Jimbo: Reverted edits by Comperr (Talk); changed back to last version by Heidi

2007-12-26T23:53:59Z

Reverted edits by Comperr (Talk); changed back to last version by Heidi

Comperr at 23:41, 26 December 2007

2007-12-26T23:41:14Z

Heidi at 02:33, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T02:33:20Z

Heidi at 02:28, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T02:28:52Z

Heidi: /* So is it GPL "free" or BSD "free"? */

2007-02-27T02:28:20Z

So is it GPL "free" or BSD "free"?

Heidi: so is it...

2007-02-27T02:27:46Z

so is it...

Heidi: GPL BSD

2007-02-27T02:20:29Z

GPL BSD

Heidi: windows

2007-02-27T01:58:58Z

windows

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 *'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.
 *'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.
+**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services. Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.
 **There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.
-−
 *'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money.  It may be redistributed however one sees fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 **There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.
-*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money.  It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit.  Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.
+*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money.  It may be redistributed however one sees fit. Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.
 ==So is it free like GPL or free like BSD?==

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:
-*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.  However you get two major advantages: Support from the company, and and messy details of how the operating system works are hidden from you.
+*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.
-*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.  However you don't have any accountability with any corporation should something go wrong.  Furthermore you can't release private versions for your own needs.
+*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.
 **There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:
-*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.
+*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.  However you get two major advantages: Support from the company, and and messy details of how the operating system works are hidden from you.
-*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.
+*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.  However you don't have any accountability with any corporation should something go wrong.  Furthermore you can't release private versions for your own needs.
 **There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.
-**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''' like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but they are neither free like "free beer" nor free like "free speech." Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services and moreover, they require some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, under certain flavours of Red Hat like the Enterprise series, the utility which keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions, called the "up2date" can be had only with a subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.
+**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''', like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''', which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit, evaluate or alter it however they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but these licenses are neither free like beer nor free like speech. Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services Moreover, they ask for some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, the utility "up2date" keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions. With some flavours of Red Hat, like the Enterprise series, up2date can be had only through a paid subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.
 *'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money.  It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit.  Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:28, 27 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	FreeBSD is free—free ~~as in~~ speech and free ~~as in~~ beer.	+	FreeBSD is free—free like speech and free like beer.

	Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:		Here's a quick rundown of what "free" can mean and how "free" various OSes are:

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money.  It may be redistributed however one sees fit. The source code not only may, but '''must''' be made available, which helps with both auditing and altering the OS in whatever way seems fit.  Moreover, unlike the GPL license, the BSD license allows using the BSD code for proprietary purposes. Aside from crediting the sources, there is no requirement to make any adapted or changed chunks of code available to anyone else, under the BSD license or any other license. Also, nothing in the operating system has been designed to be usable only if a "subscription" is bought from some organization. For example, the ports and packages systems, which roughly do the same things as RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, can be had by anyone and everyone without the need for SSL certificate identification.
-==So is it GPL "free" or BSD "free"?==
+==So is it free like GPL or free like BSD?==
 The BSD vs Linux holy wars include disputes over which license is "better." Both have their strong sides and weak sides. The GPL not only urges but forces the free licensing of software, which many authors believe ensures their work will remain free and won't have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary projects using their codebase.  Meanwhile the BSD license encourages developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by giving them a codebase they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered by restrictive licensing, which could harm or altogether thwart their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's much less restrictive licensing scheme we likely wouldn't be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today. More or less every operating system on the planet used BSD's original TCP stack when adopting that protocol and a surprising number of them, both commercial and free, still have snippets of it here and there even today.
 [[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 *'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.
-*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money.  You may redistribute it as you see fit.  You not only may, but '''must''' be allowed to see the source code to aid you in either auditing or altering it as you see fit.  You must, however, make any alterations which you make to its source code also available under all of these same terms&mdash;you may not make them proprietary.
+*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost money and can be redistributed by anyone as they see fit. The source code is not only available, but ''must'' be made available, which helps a lot with auditing and allows the OS to be altered in whatever way seems fit. However, the source code for any alterations must then also be made available under all the same terms. There is no way to make them proprietary.
-**Some specific '''variants of GNU/Linux''', such as some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' are "free" in the sense that anyone may download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined briefly above, but are very distincly NOT free in the "free beer" sense&mdash;or in some cases of the "free speech" sense&mdash;in that crucial portions of the base functionality of the operating system are not unlocked unless you pay the maintainers for a set of services, and authenticate yourself to them to prove who you are and that you have so paid.  As an example, you cannot use the "up2date" utility (which keeps your installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions) under certain versions of Red Hat (namely their Enterprise series) unless you have a subscription and authenticate yourself with a certificate.
-*'''FreeBSD''' does not cost money.  It may be redistributed as you see fit.  You not only may, but '''must''' be allowed to see the source code to aid you in either auditing or altering it as you see fit.  But where the BSD license differs from the GPL license is this:  You '''may''' use portions of the BSD code for proprietary purposes, and aside from crediting your sources, you are NOT required to make portions of the code you reuse or your own alterations available under the BSD license or any other license.  In addition, no part of the operating system is designed to be usable only if you maintain some sort of "subscription" to any organization; for example the ports and packages systems, which are roughly analogous to RedHat Enterprise's up2date system, are available to anyone and everyone without need for SSL certificate identification.
+**There are '''variants of GNU/Linux''' like some versions of '''Red Hat Linux''' which are "free" in the sense anyone can download the source code and audit/evaluate/alter it as they wish under the terms of the GPL as outlined above, but they are neither free like "free beer" nor free like "free speech." Crucial chunks of the operating system's base functionality are unlocked only if the maintainers get paid for a set of services and moreover, they require some kind of authentication to prove they've been paid. For example, under certain flavours of Red Hat like the Enterprise series, the utility which keeps installed binaries current with the distribution's current versions, called the "up2date" can be had only with a subscription and subsequent authentication with a certificate.
 ==GPL "free," or BSD "free"?==