Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

    I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

    We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
    This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

    The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

    Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

    Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

    Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

    Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

    That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

    So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.

  • #2
    BSD doesn't bring the world freedom at all. In fact, it brings bondage, dependence and slavery.

    http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20...four-freedoms/

    BSD is literary the opposite of the GPL.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by brosis View Post
      I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

      We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
      This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

      The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

      Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

      Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

      Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

      Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

      That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

      So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.
      If the PS4 had used Linux, or Netflix, you may still be unable to access the content. I'm not sure why you're conflating two entirely different issues. Generally IPTV clients are implemented as userland programs, not in the kernel, so your GPL does not apply. SteamOS is totally different. By the way, Valve's Steam is still a walled garden and mostly proprietary so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

      beetreetime, I refuse to ingratiate that blog with any page-views. I have already looked at it and it is filled with racism, homophobia, and stupidity. It is a mess and full of blatant lies that scarcely need debunking for their immediately visible absurdity.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree that Steam on Linux is a good example how the commercial BSD culture of keeping novel things to oneself (temporarily or indefinitely) differs from the Linux culture of making them available to the whole community more or less immediately.

        However, I don't think that the situation would be better if BSD was also under a copyleft license. The PS4 is a closed system which is a choice by Sony, only afterwards they chose BSD. Else they would have simply chosen a different OS. An example where this happened is busybox, where Sony supports the development of the BSD licensed busybox replacement toybox instead.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JX8p View Post
          If the PS4 had used Linux, or Netflix, you may still be unable to access the content. I'm not sure why you're conflating two entirely different issues. Generally IPTV clients are implemented as userland programs, not in the kernel, so your GPL does not apply. SteamOS is totally different. By the way, Valve's Steam is still a walled garden and mostly proprietary so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

          beetreetime, I refuse to ingratiate that blog with any page-views. I have already looked at it and it is filled with racism, homophobia, and stupidity. It is a mess and full of blatant lies that scarcely need debunking for their immediately visible absurdity.
          As Steam is not obligating developers to do "exclusive releases" and DRM within Steam is optional - it is not walled garden.
          If PS4 or Netflix would have used Linux kernel, then the probability for them to release native clients would be substantially higher, simply because GPL makes taking parts and pluging into proprietary codebase unfavorable (yet not "impossible"), suggesting extending and contribution instead.

          If Valve would take BSD for SteamOS, then its nearly guaranteed that the console would be proprietary, and BSD client? Really?

          Furthermore, regarding "generally" thing - please provide me any info of an IPTV company that uses BSD and makes its client run on BSD.
          Until then, you posted nonsense approximation, sorry.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by chithanh View Post
            I agree that Steam on Linux is a good example how the commercial BSD culture of keeping novel things to oneself (temporarily or indefinitely) differs from the Linux culture of making them available to the whole community more or less immediately.

            However, I don't think that the situation would be better if BSD was also under a copyleft license. The PS4 is a closed system which is a choice by Sony, only afterwards they chose BSD. Else they would have simply chosen a different OS. An example where this happened is busybox, where Sony supports the development of the BSD licensed busybox replacement toybox instead.
            I agree to what you wrote.

            Funny enough busybox are GPL3 haters (yes, they are), because they thought (or were sure) GPL3 is "restricting" them the contacts to proprietary embedded system builders.
            These proprietary builders will now reimplement whole busybox as a BSD clone, completely leaving them no choice. Their project will be GPL3 incompatible, incompatible with more opensource licenses than GPL3 and, at same time, more restricting than BSD.

            Notably Linus refused to switch to GPL3 not due to the newer conditions, but due to impossibility of getting an allowance from all the kernel contributors.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by brosis View Post
              As Steam is not obligating developers to do "exclusive releases" and DRM within Steam is optional - it is not walled garden.
              If PS4 or Netflix would have used Linux kernel, then the probability for them to release native clients would be substantially higher, simply because GPL makes taking parts and pluging into proprietary codebase unfavorable (yet not "impossible"), suggesting extending and contribution instead.

              If Valve would take BSD for SteamOS, then its nearly guaranteed that the console would be proprietary, and BSD client? Really?

              Furthermore, regarding "generally" thing - please provide me any info of an IPTV company that uses BSD and makes its client run on BSD.
              Until then, you posted nonsense approximation, sorry.
              That's because they can't. I'm sure Valve would love to if they could. They're pretty much the only name in digital distribution these days. As for the PS4 I have access to a PS4 devkit which includes source code to the system. There appears to be very little in-kernel modification; the kernel is merely used to host the PS4's libraries and frontend. With Linux you would have the exact same issue. If you didn't, the GPL would be less popular, because then releasing userland applications would be a legal minefield that no one in their right mind would dare challenge.

              And if Valve took BSD for SteamOS, there's no guarantee it'd be proprietry. Besides, it seems to me Valve hasn't done very much with Linux itself bar put Steam Client on top of it. What do you gain from that? No patches.

              I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to IPTV and BSD. I was talking about the fact that IPTV clients are not kernel-land applications. Therefore they are NOT covered by the GPL.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JX8p View Post
                That's because they can't. I'm sure Valve would love to if they could. They're pretty much the only name in digital distribution these days. As for the PS4 I have access to a PS4 devkit which includes source code to the system. There appears to be very little in-kernel modification; the kernel is merely used to host the PS4's libraries and frontend. With Linux you would have the exact same issue. If you didn't, the GPL would be less popular, because then releasing userland applications would be a legal minefield that no one in their right mind would dare challenge.
                .. unless the userspace is completely BSD or GPL. Like what most Linux/BSD users use.
                Its a problem of restrictive licenses. One restricts freedom, other restricts denial of freedom and opensource just gifts code yet keeps silent on any other aspect.
                If the kernel component is licensed with a restricting license of different polarity than inside userspace, then there are clear interfaces defined.
                As of mines, minefields are dangerous only for those, who IFF as enemies
                Actually, in real world, proprietaries are much much more often seen setting and falling for minefields along themselves than for copyleft.

                Originally posted by JX8p View Post
                And if Valve took BSD for SteamOS, there's no guarantee it'd be proprietry. Besides, it seems to me Valve hasn't done very much with Linux itself bar put Steam Client on top of it. What do you gain from that? No patches.
                The chances Valve would release standalone client if it used BSD as base are equal to those of PS4 using Linux for their proprietary stack.
                Valve does not need patching kernel, the gain was the popularity, games and faster/better graphical drivers.

                Originally posted by JX8p View Post
                I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to IPTV and BSD. I was talking about the fact that IPTV clients are not kernel-land applications. Therefore they are NOT covered by the GPL.
                Ofc they are not in kernel space, at least for Linux-based IPTV recievers. Regardless if standalone or inside set top boxes.
                Because for BSD-hosted IPTV recievers I found none native client. What I get with regards to IPTV and BSD is a mess that runs inside a sealed blackbox.

                So if you know any IPTV client that works on vanilla BSD system, I would be interested to know. I found none - BSD is everywhere, but no profit (to choice, not just to wallet).

                Comment


                • #9
                  This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with licenses.

                  If a company chose (choice being key here!) an operating system based on the permissiveness of its license, they were NEVER going to pick ANY copyleft system in the first place. If BSD didn't exist, they would have bought something else. All that extra appended complaining about media player compatibility is completely irrelevant.

                  You want a company that supports Linux, right? Well, find an IPTV vendor that supports Linux and stop whining about licenses. The company decides on its product, not the license (unless they're stupid and don't read the license).

                  Nothing to see here ... same old rubbish about licenses having magical powers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nslay View Post
                    This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with licenses.
                    Point me to any other non-GPL kernel based IPTV solution that supports non-windumbs.
                    Otherwise - it IS a license issue, because its as is ONLY due to concept followed in the license.

                    Originally posted by nslay View Post
                    If a company chose (choice being key here!) an operating system based on the permissiveness of its license, they were NEVER going to pick ANY copyleft system in the first place. If BSD didn't exist, they would have bought something else. All that extra appended complaining about media player compatibility is completely irrelevant.

                    You want a company that supports Linux, right? Well, find an IPTV vendor that supports Linux and stop whining about licenses. The company decides on its product, not the license (unless they're stupid and don't read the license).

                    Nothing to see here ... same old rubbish about licenses having magical powers.
                    No, I don't want a company that supports Linux.
                    I want a company that supports multiple platforms, preferably open ones too. That does not impose restrictions that have nothing to do with what they are paid for.

                    I see you guys like to quickly jump of the topic into abstract rubbish. When represented with real world events, you for the lack of back up, start religion-, magic-, unluck- talk, anything except real world data.

                    If you believe in magic, then start your own topic - like SteamOS didn't use BSD, because its less magical. Gabe himself has stated numerous times that he wanted more freedom to users and less vendor lock-ins. Is BSD providing anything for freedom of users or against vendor lock-in?

                    Sure, they'd start some proprietary exchange license, but what does this have to do with topic? Nothing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is an interesting thought process. But I think the thing that makes more sense is that usually the people who use Linux at the core for embedded systems is because someone works there that is a Linux person and also suggested they provide a client. Just a guess, but it's because Linux users are far more 'community' driven due to the nature of the GPL, whereas BSD users are more "I get stuff for FREE!" type of people.

                      That's really what makes the most sense to me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Companies aren't providing BSD versions because there's not enough commercial demand from users of BSD operating systems. Linux has enough desktop users that supporting Linux has some financial incentives via sales/subscriptions. BSD does not have that clout.

                        It's that simple.

                        Every company exists to make money. Linux is popular enough to make them money. BSD is not. License is irrelevant. The Linux IPTV programs aren't released because the GPL made them. They're released because the authoring company decided that there's a decent number of Linux users who'll pay for the service. If they were convinced that there were enough BSD users, they'd release on their too. Or for Haiku or QNX or FreeDOS or whatever else.

                        GPL didn't do anything in terms of these specific (proprietary) programs. You may argue that the GPL is what helped Linux rise to the top vs the older BSD, but it is simply illogical to claim that the GPL affected something that a distribution license has literally zero power over (like the distribution of a completely separate piece of software).

                        The same goes with Valve. If all the nerds were raving about BSD and pooing on Linux all the time, Steam would have a BSD client and people would be whining about how Linux is left out in the cold. Valve exists to make money. That's it. Any and every claim about "supporting users' freedoms" is glorified marketing. It's utterly meaningless other than to get more users and developers to buy into Valve's proprietary products and services on the Linux platform. If Valve valued Freedom that much, Steam would be GPL'd, the Steam SDK would be GPL'd (the full SDK, like profiles/friends and SteamCloud and achievements and so on ), and developers would be able to put games up on it without paying Valve a cent over raw bandwidth/operations costs. Oddly that's not happening; it's almost like Valve is a for-profit corporate entity and puts their profits ahead of the precious Four Freedoms. Weird. The freedom that Valve sees in Linux has nothing to do with users; it has to do with Valve's freedom to profit being protected from Microsoft's freedom to embed the Windows Store in its OS. If Microsoft pulls off the Windows Store right (I have my doubts given how horrendously bad Live for Windows turned out to be, but maybe they'll pull it off) then Valve will in time be relegated to a legacy/niche player on Windows. That would be bad for Valve's profits. If on the other hand Valve can get a large chunk of their customers switched over to an OS with no proprietary game distribution competition then their profits are safe. Valve gives zero shits about you; it cares about your money. It's a for-profit corporation. Money is the only reason it exists. It's the only reason my company exists, it's the only reason Red Hat exists, it's the only reason any for-profit corporation exists.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                          Companies aren't providing BSD versions because there's not enough commercial demand from users of BSD operating systems. Linux has enough desktop users that supporting Linux has some financial incentives via sales/subscriptions. BSD does not have that clout.

                          It's that simple.

                          Every company exists to make money. Linux is popular enough to make them money. BSD is not. License is irrelevant. The Linux IPTV programs aren't released because the GPL made them. They're released because the authoring company decided that there's a decent number of Linux users who'll pay for the service. If they were convinced that there were enough BSD users, they'd release on their too. Or for Haiku or QNX or FreeDOS or whatever else.
                          Thatīs a valid standpoint, but why would BSD have less marketshare than Linux and why would anyone bore himself about releasing it as free software when it gets major marketshare? Since Gabe explicitly stated he wants more freedom for the users for his console, it is logical what role GPL played.

                          But it is not direct conclusion and not verified either. Hence I am looking for IPTV and content distribution software that has a+b+c=true:
                          a) of acceptable client quality (no CLIs, text configs etc; an application, not utility)
                          b) BSD licensed or uses BSD-licensed subsystem
                          c) runs on untainted BSD

                          Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                          The same goes with Valve. If all the nerds were raving about BSD and pooing on Linux all the time, Steam would have a BSD client and people would be whining about how Linux is left out in the cold. Valve exists to make money. That's it. Any and every claim about "supporting users' freedoms" is glorified marketing. It's utterly meaningless other than to get more users and developers to buy into Valve's proprietary products and services on the Linux platform. If Valve valued Freedom that much, Steam would be GPL'd, the Steam SDK would be GPL'd (the full SDK, like profiles/friends and SteamCloud and achievements and so on ), and developers would be able to put games up on it without paying Valve a cent over raw bandwidth/operations costs. Oddly that's not happening; it's almost like Valve is a for-profit corporate entity and puts their profits ahead of the precious Four Freedoms. Weird. The freedom that Valve sees in Linux has nothing to do with users; it has to do with Valve's freedom to profit being protected from Microsoft's freedom to embed the Windows Store in its OS. If Microsoft pulls off the Windows Store right (I have my doubts given how horrendously bad Live for Windows turned out to be, but maybe they'll pull it off) then Valve will in time be relegated to a legacy/niche player on Windows. That would be bad for Valve's profits. If on the other hand Valve can get a large chunk of their customers switched over to an OS with no proprietary game distribution competition then their profits are safe. Valve gives zero shits about you; it cares about your money. It's a for-profit corporation. Money is the only reason it exists. It's the only reason my company exists, it's the only reason Red Hat exists, it's the only reason any for-profit corporation exists.
                          As stated in GPL preamble, GPL is for freedom of speech, not beer.
                          There are at least three things that prevent Valve from publishing Steam Client as opensource: VAC, DRM of titles that preferred to have DRM enabled and payment.

                          I don't understand how vendors are going to evade Valve? Granted Valve publishes Steam SDK, will they be opening their own forks of Steam? For what reason and how are they going to pay its maintenance? How about loss of value due to the loss of integration? This won't happen. They also are free to publish their works outside of Steam. People prefer Steam versions for certain benefits that Steam provides, but that only exist due to Valve input.

                          Clearly freedom of users was one of Valve criteria, but another one was evading the extinction at face of monopoly of MS Store as a second foot. Because they actively work with developers to make cross-platform (here in form of Steamplay) publishing possible, then they don't loose anything regardless which platform develops how. Especially because players already heavily invested into Steam, plus that is now crossplatform, not only dependent on one OS - hence seamlessly following the player, it is clear that Steam is many times better than locked-in MS Store.

                          Valve also cares about its users, for example it has refunded money to unsatisfied customers.
                          This is because being all-for-profit actually damages more in reality, than being mostly-for-profit. This is same with Red Hat.
                          Last edited by brosis; 01-22-2014, 02:44 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            nice post.........

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

                              We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
                              This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

                              The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

                              Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

                              Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

                              Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

                              Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

                              That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

                              So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.
                              Several questions here:
                              - How does the license of the kernel impact the support of userland programs?
                              - Are these IPTV software GPL licensed?
                              - Are steam games GPL licensed?
                              - Is there more obligation to release userland code on linux compared to BSD?
                              - Windows is proprietary and has more support of games. Does it means that proprietary brings more freedom than GPL?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X