pavement

FreeBSD is Free

From FreeBSDwiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(punctuation fix.)
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
FreeBSD is free—free as in speech as well as 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:
  
−
*'''Microsoft Windows''' costs $$$ and you may not do anything with it except run it under very narrow conditions licensed to you by Microsoft.  You not only may not see the source code to enhance it for your own or others' benefit; you may not even reverse-engineer it to try to figure out how it works for yourself.
+
*'''Microsoft Windows''' must be purchased, it's not cheap and must be run under the very narrow conditions set forth by Microsoft in the license (an infamous document called the EULA). The source code is nowhere to be seen and can't be had at any price, so the operating system can't be checked or adapted for any needs other than those which Microsoft sees fit to fill. One outcome is that Windows often looks and works more like a marketing platform than an operating system. Windows can't be legally reverse-engineered, which means even looking at the binary code to understand how it works could be illegal.
−
*'''Generic GNU/Linux''' does not cost $$$.  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—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 '''Red Hat Enterprise''', 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—or in some cases of the "free speech" sense—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 RedHat unless you have a subscription and authenticate yourself 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 $$$.  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.
+
*'''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.
  
−
== GPL "free," or BSD "free?" ==
+
==So is it free like GPL or free like BSD?==
−
One of the biggest starting points for BSD-vs.-Linux holy wars is the issue of which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license. In fact, each have their strong points and their weak points. The GPL not only encourages but forces free licensing of software, which many authors feel ensures that their work will remain free and will not have its focus stolen by commercial and proprietary efforts using their codebase.  The BSD license, however, encourages the developers of commercial and proprietary products to adhere to open standards by providing them with a codebase which they can review and re-use as they see fit without being hampered with restrictive licensing which could harm or destroy their profitability as commercial developers. Without BSD's considerably less restrictive licensing scheme, we might very well not all be using the TCP/IP protocol on an open Internet today:  virtually 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 here and there even today.
+
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?]]
 
[[Category:Why FreeBSD?]]

Latest revision as of 21:07, 15 October 2008

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:

  • 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.
  • 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?

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.

Retrieved from "http://freebsdwiki.net/index.php?title=FreeBSD_is_Free&oldid=10674"
Personal tools