Wikidd wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 13:00:

Kitkoan wrote on Oct 30, 2012, 00:43:
As I said, last I knew, not it is this. From what I read it was, this is why Darwin code its available but why it can't be compiled into a working OS because only what its needed to be open sourced is.

Now, instead of acting like a little bitch, could you stop swearing at me and explain the differences and why Darwin is open sourced but not complete? Or do you have no idea? I took a quick look at the BSD license before my last response and from what I read, it works pretty much the same as GPL.

You deserve to get heat for not even bothering to look on Wikipedia.

You can compile the Darwin code to a working OS, but that OS is not MacOS. It's the plumbing that's underneath MacOS. Any POSIX compliant code should compile and run on the Darwin that Apple releases. As the code has a BSD heritage, Apple is under no obligation to release the code. That's why they've relicensed it as Apple Public Source License, which is a FSF approved but GPL incompatible license.

By saying you think the BSD and GPL licenses are similar, it sounds like you're trolling. The BSD says "here's the code, do whatever you want with it" whereas the GPL says "here's the code, if you distribute modifications you must also distribute the source code for those modifications".

Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License,[1] and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License[2] have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative