[nycbug-talk] BSD in the enterprise....

[G.Rosamond]

On May 29, 2004, at 7:30 PM, Sunny Dubey wrote:

> I wasn't going to reply, so I'll just clarify a few things  (single 
> response
> to both posts)
>
> On Saturday 29 May 2004 02:03 am, Nigel Clarke wrote:
>> What will it take to have *BSD in use in corporate environments?
>> was not successful until companies like Solaris and IBM started to
>> endorse it.
>
> Solaris isn't a company, its a competing product of Sun Microsystems.  
> Sun
> has had a love/hate relationship with linux.

Is there anyone Sun doesn't have a love/hate relation with?

I'm trying my a list, but it's very short. . .

>
> [...]
>
> On Saturday 29 May 2004 02:39 am, G.Rosamond wrote:
>
>
>> The vendor question is also important, as you raised it.  Because of
>> BSD licensing, there's no need for a vendor to advertise the code 
>> being
>> at the core of their closed source and or embedded system.  Snap
>> Appliances, for instance, broadcasts that one of its product lines 
>> runs
>> on Linux.  But try to find on their www site that their other product
>> line uses BSD.  I tried it once, but it was fruitless.
>>
>
> There is not advertising clause in GPL either.  In fact its the 
> adveritising
> clause of the original BSD license that RMS speaks out against
> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html), and its the same reason why
> projects like GnuTLS started (because OpenSSL has an advertising 
> clause).
>

Of course the RMS commentary. . .forgot about that one Sunny.

Most vendors work on the basis of the revised.

The reality is that advertising and putting in credit in code is two 
different things.

They are both worthy to mention, but I wouldn't call crediting 
advertising.

g