Why not GNU cmp?

[Fraser Tweedale]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:41:23AM -0400, Bob McConnell wrote:
> On Behalf Of Chad Perrin
> >On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:34:50AM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >> Unga wrote:
> >> 
> >> >I was wondering why FreeBSD wrote their own version of cmp. If it
> just the 
> >> >license, then that's fine. I prefer the BSD versions of diff, etc.
> when 
> >> >available. 
> >> 
> >> You are asking the wrong questions: why did GNU write their own
> version 
> >> of cmp?  FreeBSD's dates to 1987.
> > 
> > Y'know -- that's a really good question.
> 
> The answer is simple. The BSD license does not guarantee freedom as
> defined by RMS.
> 
>  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>  * The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to
>    your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition.
>  * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>    (freedom 2).
>  * The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements
>    to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
>    Access to the source code is a precondition.
> 
> For example, Microsoft uses many of the TCP applications and drivers
> from BSD, but will not allow access to their source code as required by
> freedoms 1 and 3.
> 
> Bob McConnell
>

The BSD license -is- a free software license as defined by the FSF.
It is not copyleft like the GPL, but it is satisfies the four essential
freedoms.  RMS agrees.

frase
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20080926/eb12da8a/attachment.pgp