Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should There Be A Unified BSD Operating System?

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

  • #31
    The open-core model, that this company uses, should be banned in GPL v5 (skipping 4, bad number).
    This is active unpatched currently highly misused exploit vector of GPL and it leads to GPL becoming "shareware" and "bugtest" qualities.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
      When I see claims from BSD parasites like "BSD should work with Linux" or "Linux should not implement features that are not welcome/accepted within BSD", you only confirm your parasite behaviour.
      Good thing Linux does not show parasite behavior when it comes to GNU. "Oh, neat, free tools. Let's grab them."

      Hypocrites.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
        Good thing Linux does not show parasite behavior when it comes to GNU. "Oh, neat, free tools. Let's grab them."

        Hypocrites.
        GNU is open. Linux is open. If you have problem with Linux taking BSD-licensed material, fix your license. Write straight - usage only allowed in proprietary environiment. Prove the fact even more, that you are proprietary sluts.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          GNU is open. Linux is open.
          BSD is open. Now what?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
            BSD is open. Now what?
            BSD is not open, it is "free to close". Major difference.

            Comment


            • #36
              The GPL is not open, it denies potential users to distribute their hard work under a better license.

              Comment


              • #37
                Please...

                I suggest we all calm down and do not start another BSD vs. GPL war.
                There are several places where you can discuss this endlessly, but please try to keep this on topic.
                If you go on, then just try to behave like adults. You know, not acting like zealots.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Oh, please, not this again.

                  In practice, permissively licensed open source projects do not have any issues with getting corporate contributions. For the most part, the license type simply doesn't matter. If a company is willing to contribute code to open source projects, they do so in a meaningful manner.

                  Anyway, if there is a license that is frowned upon in much of the corporate world, it's GPLv3. Many companies simply won't touch GPLv3 code with a ten foot pole, if possible, so there won't be any contributions back either. GPLv2 is well accepted, though.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by brent View Post
                    Anyway, if there is a license that is frowned upon in much of the corporate world, it's GPLv3. Many companies simply won't touch GPLv3 code with a ten foot pole, if possible, so there won't be any contributions back either. GPLv2 is well accepted, though.
                    And when you compare the difference between licenses, you understand why. They don't like this exploit fixed. Should you like them in turn?

                    Originally posted by BitRot View Post
                    I suggest we all calm down and do not start another BSD vs. GPL war.
                    There are several places where you can discuss this endlessly, but please try to keep this on topic.
                    If you go on, then just try to behave like adults. You know, not acting like zealots.
                    Agreed. But my message to Beasties was simple: unification is only needed for proprietary systems. This was the true goal of "unified linux" and it failed for this reason.

                    This is also the reason for Beasties to stop attacking Linux. Its open, developers not willing to support your os - port the code yourself, nobody prevents you. Port it in later stages. Stop acting like clown attacking open os, chose a valid goal - try to match own rival - MacOSX.

                    Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                    The GPL is not open, it denies potential users to distribute their hard work under a better license.
                    You mean, its either GPL or nothing? Where did you take that? Why wasn't Mozilla sued for multilicensing then?
                    Last edited by crazycheese; 11-13-2012, 05:04 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                      unification is only needed for proprietary systems.
                      Yep. Why would anyone want unified APIs? ...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                        Yep. Why would anyone want unified APIs? ...
                        Unified API or unified global API? Almost every component in Linux has a stable API.. for certain period of time. But "unified API" by means of "unified global API" or permanently stable API is only interesting for proprietary driver developers and proprietary applications. This is fact.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                          Almost every component in Linux has a stable API.. for certain period of time.
                          "This house is not gonna explode... for a certain period of time."

                          1) "NEAT! I'M SO ABOUT TO BUY IT!"
                          2) "GTFO."

                          Your choice.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ryao View Post
                            Juniper Networks also contributes code to FreeBSD. They are one of the companies that would have been forced to disclose changes under the GPL, yet they use FreeBSD and contribute improvements without a legal requirement to release anything.
                            .
                            Big in vpn stuff
                            awesome company, good business...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ryao View Post
                              For example, they maintain their own internal fork of MySQL and I doubt that any of the code in it will ever be released for use outside of Facebook.
                              GPL has never has any impact on what people do with code 'in their home', only upon distribution. This has opened up the possibility of using modified GPL licenced software 'as a service' while not providing source code.

                              Obviously this was not FSF's intention and there's the affero GPL licence which deals with this shortcoming.

                              Originally posted by ryao View Post
                              Juniper Networks also contributes code to FreeBSD. They are one of the companies that would have been forced to disclose changes under the GPL, yet they use FreeBSD and contribute improvements without a legal requirement to release anything.
                              Under GPL they would have to release all their changes, not only what they deem appropriate. They will not release anything which they think can lose them a competitive edge, same goes for Cisco, this means that FreeBSD loses out.

                              If both companies were legally bound to release all their modifications then FreeBSD would move forward faster and Juniper and Cisco would have to compete on other strengths than 'the secret sauce'.

                              Originally posted by ryao View Post
                              With that said, nearly all of the code being contributed to Linux was written to further corporate interests and would have likely been contributed anyway.
                              The reason we are seeing so much open company sponsored development on Linux is because GPL makes a great licence for cooperative development. Companies know that everyone who wants to ship Linux code needs to provide their enhancements for all participants to use, this makes for a platform where you get away from the 'company a won't release their enhancements so why should company b release their enhancements' dilemma.

                              You have to ask yourself why if -'BSD is so much better for companies' as BSD advocates state, Linux is enjoying so much more company support in the form of developers and code?

                              Those who are totally delirious try to blame a lawsuit 20 years ago where all mindshare went to Linux. That's nonsense, if the BSD were so much better equipped to handle the needs of companies then it would have gained on Linux during these 20 years, not slowly faded into near oblivion.

                              As it has turned out companies (particularly proprietary) LOVE picking up BSD/MIT licenced code, but they are (quelle suprise!) nowhere as willing to submit code under BSD/MIT.

                              Meanwhile companies are much more willing to submit code under GPL conditions, which has lead to Linux incredible rise as the largest open source collaboration in the world.

                              Originally posted by ryao View Post
                              Virtually none of the code contributions are things that corporations were forced to release.
                              ??? If they ship GPL licenced code they need to submit they changes. Linux is GPL licenced.

                              Originally posted by ryao View Post
                              Whenever a company has code that they do not want to release, they either use something other than Linux or keep it internal.
                              A company generally doesn't want to release anything which competitors can use, however if they AND their competitors are legally bound to do so then that solves the problem and creates a level playfield.

                              If they keep their enhancements internal then again it's out of the scope of the GPL, but it also severely limits their use of said code.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cthulhux View Post
                                "This house is not gonna explode... for a certain period of time."

                                1) "NEAT! I'M SO ABOUT TO BUY IT!"
                                2) "GTFO."

                                Your choice.
                                My choice is (1) because my house is modern with open design - it adapts to always improving ground, the power comes from within its source
                                Ofc, if you use closed bricks stone house with patented design of unknown origin, you house is gonna fall underground, unless your provider maintains and fixes it for you at certain high (due to proprietary design and resulting incompatibility) rates.

                                But because the ground construction is very open too, some gardens (like Red Hood etc) offer private locations, where the ground is fixed for periods of up to 10 years. Ofc at acceptable maintaining rate... but at least regular soil inspections are included in price.

                                Or... there are some free stable grounds of kingdom Debian and in Africa district LTS, many build their houses there, but the local folks ask for nothing and exactly that much they promise,... but it works!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X