4 ms·
> Given that it is BSD licensed, it may not meet everyone's definition of "Free", but at least there is a good chance of having fully documented, source-availab
by pedrocr 12y ago
> Given that it is BSD licensed, it may not meet everyone's definition of "Free", but at least there is a good chance of having fully documented, source-available drivers in the future.
3-clause BSD (what's common these days) meets pretty much everyone's definition of Free:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatible...
(The following licenses qualify as free software licenses, and are compatible with the GNU GPL.)
- poizan42 12y agoNot if you ask RMS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- Turing_Machine 12y ago"the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses." There are open source licenses that RMS considers non-free, but the modern (3 clause) BSD license isn't one of them.