Hacker News Reader

Not just Linux. More specifically: “Operating system provider” does not mean a person or entity that distributes an operating system or application under license terms that permit a recipient to copy, redistribute, and modify the software.

View on HN

I read the title and thought "BSD folk must be in shambles". Glad it is not as shortsighted as I originally thought.

Yes, I wonder what false positives and false negatives will result from that definition. I suppose Microsoft permits corporate licensees to copy (to all their PCs and servers), redistribute (internally), and modify (by corporate software developers and also by sysadmins using group policy) the software.

Maybe it should say, the software 'code' - requiring open source code - and to do it all 'for free'.

there must be an reasonable assumption of what counts as such in the first place. being modifiable and publicly available in both source and binary form sound like enough to me.

> both source and binary form

Where does it say that? Not in the GGP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com