Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple's OS X Launchd Being Ported To FreeBSD

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Serge View Post
    The GPL does not prohibit anyone from re-using code licensed under it. The GPL's "viral" nature attempts to extend the rights of code re-use even further. It is those who reject a project based on it being GPL that are responsible for less code re-use, not those that choose to cover their projects using the GPL

    If a project's members choose to license their code under the GPL, those members should not be held responsible for the decisions of others not under their control to reject GPL code. On the other hand, those who reject GPL code do so because they don't want others to re-use their own derivatives of that code, so it is in fact those that reject the GPL and other copyleft licenses, not those that proliferate them, who are discouraging code re-use.

    It is true that not every project entity that chooses the GPL for its output does so for the purposes of encouraging code re-use. Some projects make their work available under both GPL and proprietary licenses in order to enable the commercial entities financially backing the project to sell proprietary licenses to the code. Both such asynchronous licensing situations and permissive licensing situations have drawbacks compared to a pure GPL approach: for permissively licensed code, the rights of code re-use are not protected to the same extent that they are with the GPL, while for dual-licensed code, one or several entities is placed in a privileged position relative to that of other stakeholders.

    However, since the output of such dually-licensed projects is available under a GPL license at no charge, the only potential adopters of the code who are directly affected by the availability of a proprietary license to the code are those that had already made the decision to reject the GPL. Those that were seeking to use GPL code in the first place can still do so and are not directly negatively impacted by the availability of proprietary licensing options.
    Wow! What a bunch of convoluted bullshit that is ...

    Permissive licenses encourage code re-use by everybody: Proprietary and FOSS alike (Well, duh it's permissive!). If you don't like that, don't use a permissive license for your projects.

    If you're a user, this issue doesn't even matter (so why do you care?). Does it somehow upset you that some permissive software you use daily found its way into some proprietary software? I'll tell you that my FreeBSD experience remains unaffected by any code included in Darwin ...

    Comment


    • #32
      What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.


      Originally posted by Serge View Post
      The GPL does not prohibit anyone from re-using code licensed under it. The GPL's "viral" nature attempts to extend the rights of code re-use even further. It is those who reject a project based on it being GPL that are responsible for less code re-use, not those that choose to cover their projects using the GPL

      If a project's members choose to license their code under the GPL, those members should not be held responsible for the decisions of others not under their control to reject GPL code. On the other hand, those who reject GPL code do so because they don't want others to re-use their own derivatives of that code, so it is in fact those that reject the GPL and other copyleft licenses, not those that proliferate them, who are discouraging code re-use.

      It is true that not every project entity that chooses the GPL for its output does so for the purposes of encouraging code re-use. Some projects make their work available under both GPL and proprietary licenses in order to enable the commercial entities financially backing the project to sell proprietary licenses to the code. Both such asynchronous licensing situations and permissive licensing situations have drawbacks compared to a pure GPL approach: for permissively licensed code, the rights of code re-use are not protected to the same extent that they are with the GPL, while for dual-licensed code, one or several entities is placed in a privileged position relative to that of other stakeholders.

      However, since the output of such dually-licensed projects is available under a GPL license at no charge, the only potential adopters of the code who are directly affected by the availability of a proprietary license to the code are those that had already made the decision to reject the GPL. Those that were seeking to use GPL code in the first place can still do so and are not directly negatively impacted by the availability of proprietary licensing options.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by brosis View Post
        It allows concurrent boot, so yes, its faster. Its also not much different from BSD init, one got links, other text entries. The only case where BSD init might win is slow file open operations.
        Still doesn't explain how BSDinit is faster than sysvinit

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by deanjo View Post
          Oh I have one sure fire way of bluescreening Windows 8 / 8.1 with Virtualbox 4.2 series.

          Poof!!! DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL (VBoxUSBMon.sys)
          Or you could just use a Creative sound card. How are they still in business?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
            What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.
            No, it doesn't. One could argue that it is a code effect, but the intention is clearly that everybody is able to reuse code, the one originally licensed under the GPL and its derivatives. Also, irrational implies there isn't a process of thought, while IMO the trade off was carefully weighted: they chose to make sure there is no patent trolling or locking on GPL software. Being unable to use it in some commercial projects (mostly where DRM is required, or where you put patented code that you do not want any competitor to use) is a side effect, and not "going out of their way to discourage code reuse". In fact, the patents part was long due, as you can't expect a viral license to work if others can make you cease the practical use of the code because of their patents (of course, assuming those others did distribute the code or contributed to it, otherwise they are not affected by the license and you are still liable). DRM clauses might be seen under the same scopes. You an agree or disagree that this is a good choice, but saying it goes out of their way to discourage code reuse is nonsense. It is nonsense the other way around, too.

            I'm kind of tired of this kind of arguments about which license is better. Any project chooses its own, and they have their reasons to.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by nslay View Post
              Wow! What a bunch of convoluted bullshit that is ...

              Permissive licenses encourage code re-use by everybody: Proprietary and FOSS alike (Well, duh it's permissive!). If you don't like that, don't use a permissive license for your projects.

              If you're a user, this issue doesn't even matter (so why do you care?). Does it somehow upset you that some permissive software you use daily found its way into some proprietary software? I'll tell you that my FreeBSD experience remains unaffected by any code included in Darwin ...
              No, permissively-licensed software doesn't bother me. Actually, I came on stronger than I meant to in my post. As mrugiero points out, licenses have been argued ad nauseam. I'm just very sick of those who choose GPL being accused of discouraging code re-use and collaboration.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                No, it doesn't. One could argue that it is a code effect,
                I meant "side effect", not "code effect".
                Also, on being irrational, hatred is an irrational answer. A rational answer is to think that GPL is not suitable for your project, which is fine, but hating it for that: irrational. So, talking about irrational things...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                  What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.
                  Your face is completely irrational. Actually, GPL3 is compatible with more licenses than GPL2...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                    What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.
                    It seems most Open Source developers love GPL and hate bsd for they projects. It's GPL that encourages reusing the code. It's totaly opposite with bsd: when someone takes bsd code he relicense it under GPL or proprietary license. Bsd is just stupid and irrational and your post is nothing but bullshit. There are many more GPL projects than bsd.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                      It seems most Open Source developers love GPL and hate bsd for they projects. It's GPL that encourages reusing the code. It's totaly opposite with bsd: when someone takes bsd code he relicense it under GPL or proprietary license. Bsd is just stupid and irrational and your post is nothing but bullshit. There are many more GPL projects than bsd.
                      Nice try there, BSD hater...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by nslay View Post
                        Wow! What a bunch of convoluted bullshit that is ...
                        When comes to your comment, yes.

                        If you're a user, this issue doesn't even matter (so why do you care?).
                        It matters a lot! Users gain the most from GPL projects, while they get usually nothing from BSD. It's because BSD is a permissive license.

                        Does it somehow upset you that some permissive software you use daily found its way into some proprietary software?
                        Yes, because proprietary is competition to Open Source. While BSD projects are open source they support their own competitors which is damn stupid. It's like giving weapons to your enemy for free, while he doesn't give you anything same time. It's not surprising he's stronger.

                        I'll tell you that my FreeBSD experience remains unaffected by any code included in Darwin ...
                        That's correct and it will remain that way. You won't get nothing from Darwin, so your experience (in positive way) won't be affected at all. Everything that I wrote here is obvious for most people. I wonder why it's not obvious for freebsd developers and other fanboys?
                        Last edited by Pawlerson; 12-20-2013, 01:44 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                          When comes to your comment, yes.



                          It matters a lot! Users gain the most from GPL projects, while they get usually nothing from BSD. It's because BSD is a permissive license.



                          Yes, because proprietary is competition to Open Source. While BSD projects are open source they support their own competitors which is damn stupid. It's like giving weapons to your enemy for free, while he doesn't give you anything same time. It's not surprising he's stronger.



                          That's correct and it will remain that way. You won't get nothing from Darwin, so your experience (in positive way) won't be affected at all. Everything that I wrote here is obvious for most people. I wonder why it's not obvious for freebsd developers and other fanboys?
                          But I'm not the fan boy here ...

                          I don't share your black/white view of the software world, and I respect developers' choice of license (whether its proprietary, copyleft or permissive). To claim that those who reject copyleft licenses somehow discourage code reuse excludes those who support permissive licenses and reject copyleft licenses. It's obvious that permissive licenses encourage more code reuse by a wider developer audience since this audience includes proprietary developers and developers who simply don't wish for copyleft licenses to extend those copyleft terms to their own work (which is understandable). A copyleft license only really encourages code reuse within the FOSS community. That's the duh part.

                          I don't know why you assume that a copyleft license somehow encourages proprietary developers to make contributions. It's still the sole discretion of the companies and developers to contribute to a copyleft project. Further, I don't understand why you assume that a permissive license does not encourage these types of contributions either; this very thread and phoronix article serve as a contradiction to your statement (since launchd was written by Apple).

                          Software licenses are software developer issues. Why so many software users care so much baffles me. The license does not change the user experience at all.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by enjolras View Post
                            Are you serious ? Are you such a fanboy you're ready to accept bad design choices in a software just to avoid other reusing your work ? It's crazy. First, the license is supposed to achieve this goal, and second, just because you don't want other to reuse your work as they want (which harmless in my opinion, but ok, let's admit some people don't like that), you'll make your code worse, reducing the quality of the software for people who use it like you expected, and you make it harder for you to maintain ?

                            It's amazing you can just suggest such a thing...
                            I am dead serious bro. I am tired of proprietary bullcrap. I love and appreciate working on and working with libre software. Not same opinion as me? Go to hell (BSD).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                              Nonsense... GCC isn't monolithic because of proprietary plugins - it's monolithic because it's an ancient code base that never had any pressure to make it modular. Whereas LLVM has been designed that way from the start, in the assumption that people want to integrate it with other tools like IDEs, instead of running from a command line or Makefile...
                              While true, nothing prevented it redesign which did not happen (some indications) and there is a modularGCC effort. This is same as Linux kernel. Monolithic design may end up as a bunch of unreadable mess, wheres modular design may end up as a mess of dependencies within mess of unreadable. GCC was used for many years in IDEs. I tend to always prefer modular approach (if there is a point in being modular, that is) , however, it can be easily exploited into freemium, if you understand what I mean.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                                Yes, because proprietary is competition to Open Source. While BSD projects are open source they support their own competitors which is damn stupid. It's like giving weapons to your enemy for free, while he doesn't give you anything same time. It's not surprising he's stronger.
                                Proprietary is more complementary to opensource, than competition. Priorietary is competition to libre software.
                                One can view opensource as next evolution step in out-sourcing of proprietary components, so instead being developed in India, they (parts) are available for those interested to cross-develop, show capability or are part of a freemium (similar to past shareware model). They are not meant for end-users, topmost for engineers.

                                In the end, they are all belonging to proprietary, its sells/licenses and are paid from it. As such they are neutral to free/libre software so long their license is neutral (BSD) or outright enemy of free/libre software (CDDL, anything Apple and now anything Google etc).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X