Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
    BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.
    May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
    Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.
    A permissive free software licence is a class of free software licence with minimal requirements about how the software can be redistributed. This is in contrast to copyleft licences, which have reciprocity / share-alike requirements. Both sets of free software licences offer the same freedoms in terms of how the software can be used, studied, and privately modified. A major difference is that when the software is being redistributed (either modified or unmodified), permissive licences permit the redistributor to combine the licensed material with other licence terms, potentially adding further restrictions to a derived work, while copyleft licences do not allow further restrictions (among other possible differences).
    Well-known examples of permissive free software licences include the MIT License and the BSD licences. A well known copyleft licence is the GNU General Public License.
    Copyleft is "a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." By comparison with permissive licences, copyleft licensing places more requirement in terms of distribution and combination with software under other licences.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by brosis View Post
      GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
      BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.

      GPL is strong copyleft license, because it protects freedoms.
      BSD is public domain, because it does not protect anything it claims.

      GPL is permissive strong copyleft.
      BSD is permissive public domain.
      CDDL is the best.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
        CDDL is the best.
        What about WTFPL?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
          What about WTFPL?
          No, WTFPL is pseudo public domain.

          CDDL is great, because it protect your code from being GPLed and allows to be included in proprietary software.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Rigaldo View Post
            What about WTFPL?
            <a type="flamewar" value="off">
            WTFPL doesn't do what you might think, because in most EU countries copyrights are not transferable. So removing copyright notice is not allowed.
            Unlicense or CC0 are better, but still isn't public domain.
            Releasing code to public domain everywhere is actually impossible.
            </a>

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
              CDDL is the best.
              Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
              For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
              Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
                For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
                Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.
                To prevent code being GPLed.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                  To prevent code being GPLed.
                  No. Quick, correct yourself.
                  Ok, I correct it for you.
                  It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
                  Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
                  CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
                  So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
                  Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
                  Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.


                  Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
                  Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.
                  Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Permissive licenses include copyleft and public domain; and contrast to prohibitive licenses such as EULA.
                  Permissive licenses grant the user rights, while prohibitive licenses reserve, limit or take the rights away.
                  One of the conditions to make sure the user really gets the advertized rights is to prohibit taking rights away, which is single restricted right in GPL.
                  Anyone who bullshits GPL essentially bullshits right to protect freedom.
                  Last edited by brosis; 02-11-2013, 05:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by brosis View Post
                    No. Quick, correct yourself.
                    Ok, I correct it for you.
                    It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
                    Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
                    CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
                    So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
                    Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
                    Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.
                    Still CDDL code never becomes GPLed.
                    ZFS on Linux will soon be dead.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

                      You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                        BSD code can't be GPL'ed either. It can be mixed with GPL code while retaining its original BSD license, in the same way that it can be mixed with proprietary code while retaining its original license.

                        You can't relicense BSD code any more than you can relicense GPL code (ie you need approval from the copyright holders).
                        Wrong, BSD licensed code can be re-licensed, and the copyright removed. It justs goes to show you how dumb BSD fuckers are. The thing is that what GPL people do it, they start crying, screaming like children (e.g. Theo de Raadt) while they just actively support proprietary companies when they take BSD code.

                        Might as well remove thier pants and bentover next to a sign saying "rape here for free"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by brosis View Post
                          1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
                          BSD fuckers always say that Linux is a copy of UNIX or that it's a plagerism of UNIX while thier OS is the real thing.

                          There's nothing further from the truth. Linux was written from scratch and it has code very different from unix but causes it to act like unix. BSD is a copy of unix, no innovation or whatsoever just blatent copying of code.

                          BSD deserved that lawsuit. I just wished it had completely distroyed BSD. Ban them completely from touching the code.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by brosis View Post
                            Permissive licenses include copyleft and public domain; and contrast to prohibitive licenses such as EULA.
                            So why is the GNU website only calling the non-copyleft open source licenses permissive licenses, but not the copyleft licenses? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

                            Why does the GNU website differentiate between copyleft and permissive non-copyleft free software licenses, if all free software licenses are permissive?
                            In the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive non-copyleft free software licenses.
                            http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html

                            Why can't we find one place on the whole site that the GPL is a permissive license?

                            Why does the Copyfree organization states that the Wikipedia definition is the
                            closest thing to a clear definition of the term "permissive license"
                            http://copyfree.org/permissive/

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by systemd rulez View Post
                              Wrong, BSD licensed code can be re-licensed, and the copyright removed. It justs goes to show you how dumb BSD fuckers are.
                              Why do you think that ? All of the BSD license variants start with the following :

                              Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
                              modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

                              1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
                              list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
                              ...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Nope.
                                The academic origins of whom? Both GPL and BSD are academic. Because RMS is MIT and BSD is Berkley.
                                If GPL is academic, what research project was it part of?
                                BSD was part of TCP/IP, virtual memory, file system, sockets, ARPANET... remember?
                                GNU/GPL was not part of a research project, hence no innovation, hence not academic.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                The differences - three differences:
                                1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
                                2) GPL is no less academic than BSD; but within GPL its impossible to develop something in open and then close it down leaving everyone behind (linking to proprietary is and was ok). That, unless two existing license exploits are present:
                                - GPL is not the only license or
                                - copyright assignment is required.
                                3) freedom protection aspect of GPL, which is completely absent in BSD - so BSD is Public Domain. You can go argue its not, but without protection of conditions (like in GPL) its clauses possess the legitimate power of a void.
                                1) You think you can just disrespect history saying BSD was copypaste? please do yourself a favor and read: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html
                                2) No, GPL is not academic, as pointed earlied. BSD, on the other hand, was. Also, I'm not an extremist when it comes to open/closed source; I think open-source is valuable, and personaly I had learned a lot from it, but I don't see closed-source as an enemy, as is usually seen by the GNU/GPL camp.
                                3) I don't find GPL's protection mechanism as freedom, nor BSD's abscense of them as anti-free.


                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                No. Not proven. If its "academic", software for study, it does not mean anything.
                                Yes, it proves it and means a lot. It means that the main motivation for BSD has always been freedom, not support for companies. Put in another way: it is possible to get BSD code and close it, but that was never the purpose of BSD; as I said, BSD PREDATES all this. At most it can be seen as a side effect.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                GPL is both for production and for study.
                                BSD is only for study, because it does not protect anything - its an advertizing license. Publishing any commercial content under advertizing license means making public domain. Nobody does that, except they have patent portfolio to cover it, or/and its about an interface to something bigger and they target large userbase by making the interface widely compatible.
                                For production for BSD, the license is EULA. EULA is extremely restricting, not much "freedom" left.
                                If this is the case, I see no problem with these; for me BSD represents freedom, but I also acknowledge the importance of GNU/GPL in the history of FOSS. I also give them their deserved merits.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                If I am to choose between freedom license that only restricts removing that freedom, and freedom license that does not protect anything it claims and I end up with EULA in result, I choose GPL for freedom license.
                                Because BSD freedoms do not work since nobody cares about them, its anarchy.
                                You are free to think like that. Now, I see a simple, short license like BSD/MIT represent my ideals of freedom more than GPL, which is a license so complex that you can't think about doing something with them without the help of a lawyer. Something like this:

                                "The way it was characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then Berkeley had what we called ‘copycenter’, which is ‘take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want.’"
                                —Kirk McKusick, BSDCon 1999

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Do not be surprised, if you loose GPL folks and will be dependent upon your new proprietary friends which hate freedom.
                                Not only you lie about freedom, you troll GPL and support the force behind anti-freedom proactively.
                                Do not wonder if GPL people will give a fuck about you.
                                I do not lie about freedom for stating what it means TO ME; you lie about it by stating what IT SHOULD MEAN TO EVERYBODY. I do not troll GPL; as said above, I give them their deserved credit.
                                I don't depend on "GPL people" so I would give a fuck if they give a fuck.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                No.
                                GPL started because proprietary endangered the whole existence of UNIX and is sole purpose is to remove proprietary influence over the code it protects. Influence, not proprietary itself.
                                Proprietary is free to link runtime to GPL at any level and hence cooperate on binary level.
                                You can see that GNU/GPL is not anti-proprietary movement.
                                I think it is possible to have a free Unix even without GPL, although I must admit that the license has been a great strenght behind Linux' success. My point was that, while BSD was motivated by academy, by research, GNU/GPL on the other hand had more "emotional" motivations as a response for proprietary companies. This, I believe, invalids the claims that BSD supports closed-source companies.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Proprietary-agnostic = freedom-agnostic. BSD does not actually care about anything, it just advertizes 1)authorship 2)absence of warranty/responsibility
                                Well, I would say to this that I prefer a license that lets me decide WHAT is freedom (you could GPL the BSD) instead of a license that FORCES a definition of it (GPL is GPL now and forever). You can decide what freedom means to you, but trying to force everybody to think like this is, to me, something stupid.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Yes, BSD motivation was "do anything about our code what you want".
                                Its kind of putting fire out with gasoline.
                                The only one who fights freedom is the one who preserves it by limiting the single right remove freedom. That's RMS and co.
                                I'd love you to read http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html and tell me that the BSD folks weren't fighting for freedom if you dare.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                For example, even if technology establishes under BSD license, no one can prevent major publisher from adding patented, closed
                                source extensions to it and thus invalidating the BSD-licensed technology altogether in one move.
                                A lot of serious flaws unpatched to consider this anything close to freedom, by the reactions of BSD folks upon GPLv3, those are not bugs, but features.
                                Perhaps the reaction to GPL3 can be seen extreme, but, have you really gone through that license? I give you again the case of Linus Torvalds: http://www.informationweek.com/softw...pocr/229215444
                                So, do you think that you, FSF, GNU, GPL or Richard Stallman really have the last word in this? You should stop thinking of yourselves as owners of the truth.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                There is no such thing as "definition of freedom", there is freedom and there is anarchy. Freedom means "no slavery". Anarchy means allow everything.
                                I don't understand this statement; your are indeed defining freedom.
                                I think the term 'freedom' is one of the most controversial used throughout history, and neither of us are in the position to say what it is and what it isn't. The most we can do is say what represents closer our ideal of freedom

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Anarchy is not freedom - its void. An absence of any policy. This state is never possible, it is similar to null pointer.
                                But remember that a null pointer is actually a pointer to address 0x0; it is fundamentally invariable from any other pointer.

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                Single entity within anarchy immediately postulates totalitarian monarchy(no anarchy). Two+ entities postulate either war (duocratie); or any agreement(which is not anarchy - because they postulate limits).
                                For anarchy to maintain, there should be zero entities or entities completely not acting in any way, because freedom to commit action of one entity will unavoidably cancel freedom of another entity.
                                That's not opinion, its not preference, that are facts.
                                You are already assuming a definition for freedom I do not agree with, hence I do not agree with your conclusions. (what if anarchy is the only true freedom?).

                                Originally posted by brosis View Post
                                My preference is GPL when it comes to freedom or proprietary when it comes to keeping secrets; everything in-between is not stable enough.
                                What secrets can you trust, is different matter as trust is a weakness.
                                I prefer the simpleness of BSD for freedom; I do not, however, discard doing closed-source or GPL stuff.

                                Also, notice that not everyone agrees with Stallman and the GNU/GPL project; it is not a BSD-exclusive thing. For example, look at the way Linus Torvalds thinks: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/25/161
                                Torvalds is very critic with this whole issue: he likes GPL2, but does not agree with FSF, Stallman, GNU/GPL in all they say.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X