Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PathScale Gives FreeBSD, NetBSD A New C++ Runtime

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    monraaf: the BSD community frequently use the term "proprietary" to mean "has source code that we can't touch or use", that they are able to view it under the GPL makes little difference to them, it's still code that can't be used in their software.
    Saying proprietary they're simply saying bullshit. I will probably start calling bsd a shitty license.

    Shouldn't the person taking the code respect the author's wishes without being forced to? If nothing else, isn't that just polite?
    No, he shouldn't if he's working on some competive product. They're just fools if they use bsd license and expect people will give the code back.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by portablenuke View Post
      It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.
      More than that, there's a position that the BSD license doesn't actually permit "re-licensing" the source code per se. The idea is that you're free to compile it into a binary and apply your own terms to that, and you're free to incorporate it into a larger program and apply your own terms to that whole program, but you can't just strip the original copyright and license from the BSD source and pretend it never existed. The relevant text in the license is:

      Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
      This gets a bit fuzzy if you think about it a lot, which I suppose was probably one of the motivations behind the WTFPL.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by portablenuke View Post
        Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people.
        The BSD is a fine license. But i will never understand why people somehow think it's perfectly fine for a company to take BSD code into a proprietary codebase but not OK for someone to stick it in a GPL codebase. In both cases the BSD code is no longer available to the original coder, but one is celebrated as the strength of the license while the other identical scenario is derided as freeloading and forcing religion.

        The point of the BSD license is to allow others to do whatever they want with your code. Sticking it into a GPL licensed codebase is part of that freedom.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
          More than that, there's a position that the BSD license doesn't actually permit "re-licensing" the source code per se. The idea is that you're free to compile it into a binary and apply your own terms to that, and you're free to incorporate it into a larger program and apply your own terms to that whole program, but you can't just strip the original copyright and license from the BSD source and pretend it never existed.
          Certainly, but that's not the issue. The BSD licenced portion of the code doesn't change licence, only the modifications to that code are licenced differently. I've often heard BSD advocates saying that there's no problem with their code being used in closed source projects because they don't LOSE anything since the original code is still free, and it's that argument which falls flat on it's face when they then start complaining about BSD code being used in GPL licenced projects. The exact same holds true, the original code is still licenced under BSD, only changes made by the GPL programmers will be licenced under GPL. Just like any changes made by a proprietary company will be kept closed source.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
            I've often heard BSD advocates saying that there's no problem with their code being used in closed source projects because they don't LOSE anything since the original code is still free, and it's that argument which falls flat on it's face when they then start complaining about BSD code being used in GPL licenced projects.
            It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
              It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.
              No.

              (It's not like that deserves a more complicated answer.)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by dnebdal View Post
                No.

                (It's not like that deserves a more complicated answer.)
                Yes. It seems you missed what some other people said before.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.

                  I prefer weak (per file) copyleft licenses like CDDL, but it's uncompatible with GPL. So I have to chose 'shitty' license.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                    It's because they PREFER closed source software and thus they use the 'shitty' license to support it.
                    If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.

                    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                    Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.
                    You FREELY chose to use that GPL library, which someone else wrote and licenced as GPL.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                      You FREELY chose to use that GPL library, which someone else wrote and licenced as GPL.
                      You can also FREELY chose to use proprietary library ...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        Example: You write program which uses library under GPL, then you are forced to release your program under GPL, that is freedom.
                        This makes the GPL a smart license. You are free to choose whatever license you like. People who choose bsd and complain when their code is included into some GPL or proprietary project are simply morons.

                        I prefer weak (per file) copyleft licenses like CDDL, but it's uncompatible with GPL. So I have to chose 'shitty' license.
                        As far as you don't complain nobody says there's something wrong with your decision. While GPL is 'proprietary' for some bsd folks, bsd is shitty for me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                          If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.
                          Yeah, you explained this very well. Maybe their problem is when bsd code is included into some proprietary project it's not so visible. When it's included into GPL project they can only look at the code, but they can forget about having it back.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                            If they preferred closed source they wouldn't be writing open source. The only thing I don't understand is how some BSD advocates can prefer closed source over GPL (unless that is what you meant), from a practical standpoint closed source is worse for BSD than GPL licenced code so I can only assume such preference is about licence politics/zelotry, not practicality.
                            I don't know that they prefer it, I think it might just irritate them less. Whilst closed source software does say "NO! NO Mr. BSD, NO! You may NOT use this code unless you (as the original author) change your licence to the one I prefer!", it doesn't follow it with "Look at me! I'm free, you have complete freedom with my code!".

                            A caricature certainly, but the from the BSD dev's perspective you've got somebody who took your code and added extra conditions to it (so far, so similar to a closed source project) but then touts their code as being free when it's perfectly un-free from where Mr. BSD is sitting.

                            I'm still not sure why GPL is better in practice than closed source - the devs don't want to reverse engineer it, and if they did RE, how many people would believe that they didn't peek at the source code if they got stuck? How do you think the Linux devs would react to the BSD devs saying "we RE'd the linux kernel and now we have these new features!". I suspect that the lawyers would get involved and nobody wants that.

                            I should note that this is spectulation, I don't speak for all of them etc. etc.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                              Yes. It seems you missed what some other people said before.
                              I didn't miss it - but it's still a ridiculous assertion. Your post effectively said "they prefer closed to open-source programs, and they show it by writing open-source programs with a specific license". Which is not among the more convincing arguments I've heard. (As has been discussed between that post and this reply, admittedly.)

                              @archibald:
                              BSD code used in a GPL project, but kept BSD: Happiness. Unicorns dancing under rainbows etc.
                              BSD code used in closed-source project: Eh, if I have to use it at some point maybe it'll be slightly better than it'd have been otherwise.
                              BSD code made GPL: Why? They could have used it anyway, so making it impossible to import their changes is just insulting.

                              On a side note, the companies using FreeBSD are fairly decent at contributing back - after all, it's less work if a change is added upstream.
                              Last edited by dnebdal; 05-26-2011, 04:24 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by dnebdal View Post
                                I didn't miss it - but it's still a ridiculous assertion. Your post effectively said "they prefer closed to open-source programs, and they show it by writing open-source programs with a specific license". Which is not among the more convincing arguments I've heard. (As has been discussed between that post and this reply, admittedly.)
                                At first I didn't explain very well what I meant. XorEaxEax did. I meant they prefer supporting closed source projects rather than GPL ones.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X