BSD licensed software

Ha!! In Makefile is LICENSE line :)

find /usr/ports/ -name Makefile | xargs grep 'LICENSE= BSD' | wc -l

but it shows me
Code: 
0
do you have better idea?
Thanks
 
mipam007 said:
Code: 
find /usr/ports/ -name Makefile | xargs grep 'LICENSE=        BSD' | wc -l
Click to expand...

Try grepping a regexp:
Code: 
grep -E "LICENSE=\W+BSD"
 
Works fine:
Code: 
dice@molly:/usr/ports>find /usr/ports/ -name 'Makefile' | xargs grep -E "LICENSE=\W+BSD" | wc -l
     448
 
SirDice said:
Works fine:
Code: 
dice@molly:/usr/ports>find /usr/ports/ -name 'Makefile' | xargs grep -E "LICENSE=\W+BSD" | wc -l
     448
Click to expand...

yes, it is working now...my fault...thanks much!
 
we had a fiery discussion with colleagues what would be the BSD without the presence of GPL software regarding window managers, so I found at least one wm

Code: 
/usr/ports/x11-wm/enlightenment/Makefile:LICENSE=       BSD

:e:e:e
 
Don't forget, the MIT license is similar:
Code: 
/usr/ports/x11-wm/blackbox/Makefile:LICENSE=    MIT
 
The OpenCDE desktop environment is under the BSD license (...though it's Motif Window Manager is under a much more restrictive license)
 
dwm is another MIT license.

But then again, who cares what license the window manager is? They are almost always open-source and thus always available to you.
 
The thing which I could never understand:
Why should user care of the license while the software is still free to use and modify does the job?
Thats just seems sick for me.
 
nekoexmachina said:
The thing which I could never understand:
Click to expand...

probably not your fault that you do not understand :P

nekoexmachina said:
Why should user care of the license while the software is still free to use and modify does the job?
Click to expand...
Why not? Why you are interested of this post, if you don't care of licensing?

nekoexmachina said:
Thats just seems sick for me.
Click to expand...
all of what we're here, we are sick, dude
 
nekoexmachina said:
Cause I wanna understand why do you care.
Click to expand...
Good.....!

Question of boys' indiscretion - nothing intelligent. It was a stupid discussion where someone claimed that under the BSD license you will not compose full desktop.... that the BSD license is nonsense.

And thats not that bad it sounds, huh? I did not mean the 'bad-way' sickness. :)
Click to expand...
good to know ;)
 
mipam007 said:
that the BSD license is nonsense.
Click to expand...
You might want to mention to them that Cisco's IOS and Juniper's JunOS are both based on FreeBSD, something that wouldn't be possible without the BSD license :e
 
SirDice said:
You might want to mention to them that Cisco's IOS and Juniper's JunOS are both based on FreeBSD, something that wouldn't be possible without the BSD license :e
Click to expand...

I didn't know about IOS! But I know from which egg JunOS is. And this is point of our never ending stupid discussion - is this correct or not - take a code, rewrite it, use it and close it???
 
mipam007 said:
is this correct or not - take a code, rewrite it, use it and close it???
Click to expand...
If it has the BSD license, yes, that's possible. Something the GPL absolutely forbids. And it's the biggest difference between the two. So you could argue the BSD license is more free as it allows you to do absolutely everything with it, including building something and closing the resulting source.
 
SirDice said:
If it has the BSD license, yes, that's possible. Something the GPL absolutely forbids. And it's the biggest difference between the two. So you could argue the BSD license is more free as it allows you to do absolutely everything with it, including building something and closing the resulting source.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. But only a few human beings that understands... �e
 
And this is point of our never ending stupid discussion - is this correct or not - take a code, rewrite it, use it and close it???
Click to expand...
If it has the BSD license, yes, that's possible. Something the GPL absolutely forbids. And it's the biggest difference between the two.
Click to expand...
Another selling point of the BSD Licence is that any graduate of an elementary school should be able to understand it, and it takes only a minute or two to read it.

The GPL on the other hand requires the summit of lawyers to tell what's inside, and they'd probably need a day or two to find out first.
 
xibo said:
The GPL on the other hand requires the summit of lawyers to tell what's inside, and they'd probably need a day or two to find out first.
Click to expand...

And still get it wrong at times ;)
 
Yes, I entirely agree...!

But guys, are we really able to live on our FreeBSD installations without GPL[1-3] software? Do we have truly option to completely switch to applications under BSD/MIT license?
 
MIT license is essentially the same as the BSD license.

Unless your modifying the code or using a library it shouldn't matter what license it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top