Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    You should never trust corporations.
    Corporations give back to BSD, because it's cheaper for them. They get free developers. So both have benefit.
    Yes, certainly FreeBSD (in particular) of the BSD's gets code contributions from corporations using it, but nowhere near the level of corporate contributions which Linux enjoys. And given that there is no 'share-alike' licence binding cooperative development together on BSD it's very unlikely that a company will release any enhancement back to FreeBSD which they think could aid a competitor. Linux, due to it's licence is in itself a no-competition zone, all participants pool their resources into making Linux as good as possible and then use Linux as the same base when they compete in other areas (support, enterprise solutions, distros, etc).

    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    GPL is not so free. Copyleft per file would be better.
    LGPL is available to those who would want copyleft per file, however it is up to the code authors to decide if they want to licence it as such, or GPL, or BSD/MIT or CDDL etc etc, and it's up to you to decide if you find the conditions acceptable and use it.

    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    But GPL does that. For example: You include few lines of some GPL code into your program. You are foreced to relicence whole YOUR code to GPL, even if you had only slightly modified GPL before.
    Actually including only a 'few lines of code' would not constitute a derivative work unless your program was of the 'hello world' category. Also you do not have to 'relicence' YOUR code, you will have to make it available ALONG with the GPL licenced code you are using in your distributed binary but YOUR code can stay licenced as it was as long as it is GPL compatible (which BSD, MIT and the like are). So if you write code and licence it under BSD/MIT and then release a program with it which also contains GPL code then YES, you must release the source code to that WHOLE program, but you (and others) can still use YOUR part of the code in proprietary projects.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
      Os X and Ios are not freebsd, they are based on the previous jobs company Next BSD code and Mach. they improved some parts of the bsd code with parts of freebsd though but is not freebsd per se.
      No, certainly it's not anything close to vanilla FreeBSD but I doubt there's alot of old stuff from the NeXT days in there, iirc the Mach stuff isn't even micro-kernel based (Mach didn't become a full-fledged micro-kernel until late in the game, and shares little with the NeXT implementation) but again I may be remembering incorrectly.

      Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
      in the embedded world freebsd is a small share of what linux is, after all embedded is one of the uber strong linux markets
      Well I didn't say it's anywhere near Linux marketshare in embedded but it's not a 'hobby-os' outside of servers either. We have atleast Cisco and Juniper using FreeBSD as the base for their proprietary operating systems on which their embedded network devices (routers etc) runs on. Again the reason they choose FreeBSD instead of say Linux is because they are allowed to keep the enhancements they do to FreeBSD proprietary and thus use them as a competitive edge. This is great for Cisco,Juniper et al but it means less code makes it back to FreeBSD. Then again the FreeBSD developers ARE well aware of this and CHOOSE to allow this by their choice of licence so it's not as if anyone is being tricked.

      There's obviously room for both BSD and Linux, as an end-user though I prefer the Linux model as I get to enjoy ALL the kernel enhancements made by corporations and not just those they think are of no competitive consequence.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
        LGPL is available to those who would want copyleft per file, however it is up to the code authors to decide if they want to licence it as such, or GPL, or BSD/MIT or CDDL etc etc, and it's up to you to decide if you find the conditions acceptable and use it.
        LGPL is not per file, because it doesn't allow static linking.


        Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
        Actually including only a 'few lines of code' would not constitute a derivative work unless your program was of the 'hello world' category. Also you do not have to 'relicence' YOUR code, you will have to make it available ALONG with the GPL licenced code you are using in your distributed binary but YOUR code can stay licenced as it was as long as it is GPL compatible (which BSD, MIT and the like are). So if you write code and licence it under BSD/MIT and then release a program with it which also contains GPL code then YES, you must release the source code to that WHOLE program, but you (and others) can still use YOUR part of the code in proprietary projects.
        Originally posted by GPLv2
        You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
        My example has GPL incompatible license, because modified GPL is not compatible with GPL.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by LightBit View Post
          LGPL is not per file, because it doesn't allow static linking.
          Well, that is an edge case as the point is to allow the end user to modify (generally as in update) the LGPL-based part of the application which isn't practical when the LGPL part has been statically linked into a binary. From what I gather it's allowed if you provide linkable object files for the proprietary part so that the end user can link it with a modified version of the LGPL code into a binary should he/she so wish. However it doesn't seem this is a practical problem in reality as it's easy to dynamically link as we can see by the wide use of projects like gtk2, gtk3, qt, sdl, webkit which are afaik all LGPL licenced.

          Originally posted by LightBit View Post
          My example has GPL incompatible license, because modified GPL is not compatible with GPL.
          Ehh, if it's GPL incompatible then of course you can't use it together with GPL licenced code. What is your point?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
            Well, that is an edge case as the point is to allow the end user to modify (generally as in update) the LGPL-based part of the application which isn't practical when the LGPL part has been statically linked into a binary. From what I gather it's allowed if you provide linkable object files for the proprietary part so that the end user can link it with a modified version of the LGPL code into a binary should he/she so wish. However it doesn't seem this is a practical problem in reality as it's easy to dynamically link as we can see by the wide use of projects like gtk2, gtk3, qt, sdl, webkit which are afaik all LGPL licenced.
            Dynamic linking all small parts of other projects is also not practical, gtk2, gtk3, qt, sdl, webkit are diffrent story.


            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
            Ehh, if it's GPL incompatible then of course you can't use it together with GPL licenced code. What is your point?
            My point is, GPL is very incompatible and that "forces" you to use GPL for your code.
            As I said, I would prefer per file copyright license, like CDDL, but it is GPL incompatible.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              LGPL is available to those who would want copyleft per file
              Seriously: STOP SPREADING BULLSHIT!
              LGPL is NOT Copyleft per file. MPL is. LGPL is coplyleft per library.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Dynamic linking all small parts of other projects is also not practical, gtk2, gtk3, qt, sdl, webkit are diffrent story.
                Generally LGPL code IS used for libraries such as those mentioned above. And if you find dynamically LGPL impractical then by all means don't use it, no one is forcing you to.

                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                My point is, GPL is very incompatible and that "forces" you to use GPL for your code.
                As I said, I would prefer per file copyright license, like CDDL, but it is GPL incompatible.
                Again no, for YOUR code you can use any GPL compatible licence (like BSD/MIT) when combining it with GPL code. You still have to release the entire source code (including YOUR code) as per GPL's conditions, but you don't have to LICENCE your code as GPL. You can even dual-licence it so that version of your code you include together with GPL code will use a compatible licence and yet also provide YOUR same code under a CDDL licence for inclusion in other projects.

                You need to understand the difference here between YOUR code and someone else's, as soon as you use someone else's code you are subject to _their_ conditions, this holds true for all licences as they are simply 'conditions for use'. These conditions in turn makes some licences incompatible with eachother (like GPL, CDDL). Now you can argue the conditions all day long, but no one is FORCING you to use GPL because no one is FORCING you to use GPL licenced code.

                edit: and yes, Awesomness is right, LGPL is per library and not file, my mistake.
                Last edited by XorEaxEax; 05-17-2012, 08:08 AM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                  Now you can argue the conditions all day long, but no one is FORCING you to use GPL because no one is FORCING you to use GPL licenced code.
                  That is true for any license, even proprietary.
                  I only explained why I think GPL itself is selfish.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    No, certainly it's not anything close to vanilla FreeBSD but I doubt there's alot of old stuff from the NeXT days in there, iirc the Mach stuff isn't even micro-kernel based (Mach didn't become a full-fledged micro-kernel until late in the game, and shares little with the NeXT implementation) but again I may be remembering incorrectly.


                    Well I didn't say it's anywhere near Linux marketshare in embedded but it's not a 'hobby-os' outside of servers either. We have atleast Cisco and Juniper using FreeBSD as the base for their proprietary operating systems on which their embedded network devices (routers etc) runs on. Again the reason they choose FreeBSD instead of say Linux is because they are allowed to keep the enhancements they do to FreeBSD proprietary and thus use them as a competitive edge. This is great for Cisco,Juniper et al but it means less code makes it back to FreeBSD. Then again the FreeBSD developers ARE well aware of this and CHOOSE to allow this by their choice of licence so it's not as if anyone is being tricked.

                    There's obviously room for both BSD and Linux, as an end-user though I prefer the Linux model as I get to enjoy ALL the kernel enhancements made by corporations and not just those they think are of no competitive consequence.
                    1.) i readed somewhere that NeXT included originally Mach 2.0 and later for the first OS X was upgraded to 3.0 and the freebsd chunks were put inside the NeXT code but i doubt too that much of the NeXT original code remains in the latests OS X tho

                    2.) true freebsd is not some hobby OS i agree, and i use it too for certain situations tho. im not stallman so i can tolerate the BSD license but i think BSD license terms will hurt Freebsd in the long run but i admit is a nice OS

                    3.) true bsd license is public and you are free to read it and choose to use it or not in your code, so i agree no one is tricking anyone, same is true for for the other licenses tho

                    4.) linux and bsd both can coexist and compliment each other in some cases but i prefer linux mostly too XD

                    tomorrow 10 years free of microsoft products tomorrow YaY!!!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Who says that Stallman has a problem with the (modified) BSD license? The FSF clearly recommends it as one of many Free licenses on its website.

                      The FSF has created the GPL as a way to ensure that users of software have access to the source code, and people who care about this tend to choose the GPL. This doesn't mean that Stallman hates the BSD.

                      Who's funding this character assassination FFS?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        That is true for any license, even proprietary.
                        I only explained why I think GPL itself is selfish.
                        Well, a licence is just that, a licence. It has no impact unless someone uses it for _their_ code. So what you are really saying is that you think those who choose to licence their code as GPL are selfish. I don't, I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'hey, here's code I've written, you can use it under the follwing terms as long as you allow other people the same terms for any code in which you include mine'.

                        I also think people who licence their code as BSD/MIT-style are extremely generous. But it all boils down to personal choice, there is no right or wrong other than that which the code author (or owner should he/she work for someone) chooses.

                        Whatever the terms are, accept them or write your own code. And for the record I have no problem with proprietary code, which I assume you must since you find GPL 'selfish'.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                          Well, a licence is just that, a licence. It has no impact unless someone uses it for _their_ code. So what you are really saying is that you think those who choose to licence their code as GPL are selfish. I don't, I see nothing wrong with someone saying 'hey, here's code I've written, you can use it under the follwing terms as long as you allow other people the same terms for any code in which you include mine'.
                          No, I don't think releasing code under GPL is selfish, but GPL itself. It spreads like "virus".

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                            1.) i readed somewhere that NeXT included originally Mach 2.0 and later for the first OS X was upgraded to 3.0 and the freebsd chunks were put inside the NeXT code but i doubt too that much of the NeXT original code remains in the latests OS X tho
                            Well it was a while back so my memory could be failing me, but I read that NeXT OpenStep contained a Mach kernel based off an early version which was not in practice a micro-kernel (iirc Mach development was long and problematic and relied on a monolithic design for much of it's functionality during most of it's development cycle) together with parts from FreeBSD and NetBSD from which then emerged OSX.

                            The story I read was an article series which was a rebuttal of people assuming that OSX was slow due to having a micro-kernel, which the author (while also providing technical insight which seemed to back him up) claimed it did not. I'll see if I can find it again, it was quite some time ago I read it.

                            edit: I think I found the article series about Next/Mach: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk1.html
                            Here's hoping I remembered it correctly, else I feel confident Awesomness will be there to 'correct' me
                            Last edited by XorEaxEax; 05-17-2012, 11:44 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                              No, I don't think releasing code under GPL is selfish, but GPL itself. It spreads like "virus".
                              If it spreads it's only because people choose to licence their code under it and other people wants to use that code.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                                Who says that Stallman has a problem with the (modified) BSD license? The FSF clearly recommends it as one of many Free licenses on its website.

                                The FSF has created the GPL as a way to ensure that users of software have access to the source code, and people who care about this tend to choose the GPL. This doesn't mean that Stallman hates the BSD.

                                Who's funding this character assassination FFS?
                                jajajaj i just mean it in the sense that stallman tends to have mixed views of the bsd license and the lack of copyleft when he does his reccomendations(like openbsd case) and i just don't care if you choose bsd or gpl or mit or XXX is your problem so deal with it kinda position

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X