Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenBSD Is Now Forked As Bitrig

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
    By way of example, remember Darwin and Apple? Yes you can still get Darwin, it's still "open source", but the license used in it's development allowed Apple to grab a copy of the code, add to it and release the product as Mac OSX, and not acknowledge Darwin devs at least as far as profit is concerned. That was kinda sleazy IMHO, and had Darwin been GPL'd then Apple could not legally have stolen all that work.
    Apple is the original developer of Darwin at least according to Wikipedia.

    Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
    In July 2003, Apple released Darwin under version 2.0 of the Apple Public Source License (APSL), which the Free Software Foundation (FSF) approved as a free software license. Previous releases had taken place under an earlier version of the APSL that did not meet the FSF's definition of free software, although it met the requirements of the Open Source Definition.
    The first version of the Apple Public Source License was approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Version 2.0, released July 29, 2003 conforms to the Free Software Foundation guidelines, and is also approved by the OSI. The Free Software Foundation approved the Apple Public Source License 2.0 as a free software license and say it is acceptable for developers to work on projects that are already covered by this license. They recommend, however, that developers do not release new projects under this license, because the partial copyleft is not compatible with the GNU General Public License and allows linking with files released entirely as proprietary software.[3] The license does, however, require that if any derivatives from the original source are released externally, that the source be made available.
    So Darwin is actually licenced under copyleft licence that is similar to GPL. You can download its source code from here. So I seriously fail to see the issue here and also it's not stealing if it's permitted by the licence.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
      Seems like fashion to me. CLANG/LLVM produces slower code than GCC, but new is sexy! As for the features, let's wait a year or three and see where this thing is at.
      To be fair, CLANG is close to GCC, and is significantly newer [and thus, has more optimisations that have not been implemented yet]. I expcet CLANG/LLVM to be faster then GCC within two to three years. And as far as the toolset goes, its not even close: CLANG/LLVM is far, far superior to what GCC offers.

      From a developer standpoint, I'll take ease of development any day, and simply accept a 10% performance penalty.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Teho View Post
        Apple is the original developer of Darwin at least according to Wikipedia.


        So Darwin is actually licenced under copyleft licence that is similar to GPL. You can download its source code from here. So I seriously fail to see the issue here and also it's not stealing if it's permitted by the licence.
        Well, it's on Wikipedia so must be true.

        Darwin was developed using a community model (unpaid developers) and included some Apple people. Apple did not start the Darwin project IIRC, but did become it's sponsor at some point. Much of the work was done pre-2000 during the 1990s. I think the license was a BSD variant, it certainly let people contribute work and it certainly let Apple take all that work and apply some changes, then close source the result, and sell the result as OS X. I can't call that copyleft because while Darwin source can be downloaded (as I noted in my OP), none of the additions in OS X can be.

        Point is Darwin source could always be downloaded - even before as you (or wikipedia) say, Apple "released it in 2000". Exactly when the Darwin code base reached production quality Apple grabbed a copy and vanished - it had what it wanted: an OS developed on the cheap.

        Can't pull that kind of stunt in a GPL'd project. And as I said, you pick your license and you take your chances.

        Comment


        • #19
          - Use social networks to disseminate information and news.
          I have a hard time taking them seriously after that.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
            To be fair, CLANG is close to GCC, and is significantly newer [and thus, has more optimisations that have not been implemented yet]. I expcet CLANG/LLVM to be faster then GCC within two to three years. And as far as the toolset goes, its not even close: CLANG/LLVM is far, far superior to what GCC offers.

            From a developer standpoint, I'll take ease of development any day, and simply accept a 10% performance penalty.
            Not having found the GCC toolchain arduous, or at any rate no more so than any other command line compiler, I can only take you at your word wrt ease of development.

            I've always been a performance man, I care about that 10%.

            When LLVM/Clang exceeds GCC in speed of generated code I will probably switch.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Teho View Post
              ...It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.
              Clue that the wikipedia article has problems: NeXTSTEP was never and is not now open source. But, you will say, "OpenSTEP!" And I will reply, OpenSTEP was an API spec not code.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
                Darwin was developed using a community model (unpaid developers) and included some Apple people. Apple did not start the Darwin project IIRC, but did become it's sponsor at some point. Much of the work was done pre-2000 during the 1990s. I think the license was a BSD variant, it certainly let people contribute work and it certainly let Apple take all that work and apply some changes, then close source the result, and sell the result as OS X. I can't call that copyleft because while Darwin source can be downloaded (as I noted in my OP), none of the additions in OS X can be.
                Well you are simply wrong.

                In March of 1999 Steve Jobs made a new announcement, Apple was giving away some of its source code. Apple then introduced Darwin. He also stated that Darwin itself was going to be Open Source, this announcement immediately drew Open Source developers, including myself, out of the woodwork and immediately drew support from the Open Source community. This announcement also ended the FSF Boycott that the Free Software foundation had laid on Apple Computer. Darwin is based on the original NeXTStep implementation of Mach brought over from NeXT Computer. Darwin 1.0 was released shortly after the announcement and while it was primarily for Apple PowerPC based computers, preliminary support for Intel based machines was built into Darwin.
                NeXTSTEP (also written NeXTstep, NeXTStep, and NEXTSTEP[1]) was the object-oriented, multitasking operating system developed by NeXT Computer to run on its range of proprietary workstation computers, such as the NeXTcube. It was later ported to several other computer architectures.
                So in reality Apple actually open sourced most of the code from NeXTStep. The core of OS X is open source including Darwin and the code is released around the time when the system update is pushed to massess.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
                http://www.osnews.com/story/3757/Int..._Darwin/page2/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Teho View Post
                  @crazycheese: Could you please focus on the core points and stop writing completely pointless text with no proper arguments? You also try to separate your own opinion from it because no one really gives a fuck about those. Then you could also check your facts before posting.

                  I had three points:

                  1. BSD is easier for companies than GPL. This is undoutably true in theory and in practise. It doesn't require you do anything and it's legally understandable.
                  2. BSD is more free than GPL. As long as you don't go redefining the word "free" then this is also absolutely true because it allows you to do more.
                  3. Apache/BSD is extremely popular for corporate software. This then again is statically true.

                  No matter how much bullshit you spew it doesn't change any of these. Your post was full of such idiocity that I'm seriously not going to waste more of my time on it.
                  Yes, you had 3 points all of which were covered in my response answer.
                  1. "BSD is easier for companies than GPL."
                  True for evil companies, useless for good companies. Answered by me.

                  2. " BSD is more free than GPL."
                  Lie. answered by me.

                  3. "Apache/BSD is extremely popular for corporate software."
                  For useless opencore projects or parts.

                  All three points apply to the areas, which are completely useless for outer people.

                  Its like claiming "Coca-Cola is free drink", hiding the fact that it only applies within microsoft offices.

                  But instead of reading my answer, you are pulling deaf line.
                  Well, in that case, please seek medical attention, clean that bullshit between your eyes and ears which you are refering to and maybe we can talk.
                  Because I can understand you pretty good, yet you fail to understand me. It must be something on your side, mate.

                  "No matter how much bullshit you spew it doesn't change any of these."
                  Oh, does this mean you are living in your own world where only things that you make up apply?
                  Well, you might also ask doctors for cure of schizophrenia. I'm sorry to hear that.
                  Last edited by crazycheese; 06-13-2012, 01:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
                    I think the point he's trying to make is that BSD license allows closing of the code: binaries can be sold without making source available.

                    Which IMHO is neither here nor there - you pick your license and you take your chances.

                    The anger seems to come from that this group of people speaks of their license as open source, but BSD license is only as open source as a user of it chooses to be, whereas GPL denies the right to close the source.

                    By way of example, remember Darwin and Apple? Yes you can still get Darwin, it's still "open source", but the license used in it's development allowed Apple to grab a copy of the code, add to it and release the product as Mac OSX, and not acknowledge Darwin devs at least as far as profit is concerned. That was kinda sleazy IMHO, and had Darwin been GPL'd then Apple could not legally have stolen all that work.

                    Don't worry, I'm wearing my teflon and asbestos suit today, have at me.
                    Hm? Your points are completely valid, no need for protective gear

                    I have no problem with that above. I have problem when they start to lie. Because lies are designed to fool the unaware which is a "bad thing".

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      1. "BSD is easier for companies than GPL."
                      True for evil companies, useless for good companies. Answered by me.
                      Makes no fucking sense. If company is about to move to open source software then it's quite important that it's easy and safe and permissive licences are just that. You should understand that what is "evil" and what is not is completely subjective. Most of the major open source companies also use permissive licences including Red Hat and Google; so yeah I really doubt it is useless...

                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      2. " BSD is more free than GPL."
                      Lie. answered by me.
                      You can't just go and redefine words. BSD is more free than GPL as long as free actually means what free actually means.

                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      3. "Apache/BSD is extremely popular for corporate software."
                      For useless opencore projects or parts.
                      Yeah like Apache, Android, OpenStack, OpenShift, Wayland, Compiz, X.org, Chromium...

                      Do you understand how hard it's to take this shit seriously? Nothign you say make any sense what-so-ever. Not only that but you accuse others of lies and bullshiting yet you do exactly that youself.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by pankkake View Post
                        I have a hard time taking them seriously after that.
                        I think it's meant github.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                          Hmm... Does this mean... "It protects freedom of the [content] with the cost of its freedom"... ? Yes?

                          WRONG. It protects freedom of the content by preventing to remove this freedom.

                          Because if you remove this freedom, you don't have it. At this point, BSD stops existing. This case is ignored in BSD. Which means BSD is simply public domain.
                          "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                          - Benjamin Franklin

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teho View Post
                            Most companies that develope open source software use permissive licences like Apache and BSD. It makes developing open source software easier and therefor more compelling. So yes, it kinda makes sense.
                            Well, except for the one company most known for FOSS.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by liam View Post
                              Well, except for the one company most known for FOSS.
                              Red Hat? They use permissive licence for their cloud stuff for example. I think the important part here is that if we want open source software to succeed we need to make it easy and compelling for the new companies. They don't necessarily have to start contributing right a way because it's more likely for them to do so at some point in the future if they already are using open source software.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                                I think it's meant github.
                                Oh, I won't take any GitHub project seriously either

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X