Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 132

Thread: Towards A Real Business Model For Open-Source Software

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    @KAMiKAZOW

    My point was OS X isn't another *BSD. Cut OS X from quartz, graphic drivers, proprietary apps and then nothing interesting will remain.
    How interesting you find something does not define whether it's a BSD or not.
    Darwin (=OSX without GUI just as OpenBSD by default has no GUI) is a BSD through and through.
    Unless you back your ridiculous claims up with evidence, I suggest you keep your fingers away from the keyboard and stop posting uninformed things, kid.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KAMiKAZOW View Post
    How interesting you find something does not define whether it's a BSD or not.
    Darwin (=OSX without GUI just as OpenBSD by default has no GUI) is a BSD through and through.
    Unless you back your ridiculous claims up with evidence, I suggest you keep your fingers away from the keyboard and stop posting uninformed things, kid.
    OS X - about 5% market share on desktops.

    Linux - more then 1,2%

    *BSD - much, much less then Linux

    Let's compare:

    *BSD' OS X parts - Apple parts = - 4,9%?

    It looks *BSD aren't so interesting for desktops. It seems it's not even, so interesting for Apple:

    http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?posit...host=apple.com

  3. #33

    Default

    @KAMiKAZOW

    My point was OS X isn't another *BSD. Cut OS X from quartz, graphic drivers, proprietary apps and then nothing interesting will remain.
    Let me explain this. Nothing interesting will remain, because everything what will remain is already freely available. I believe the things which made an OS X popular (except marketing) are made by Apple.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    I'm sure Cisco, BestBuy, Samsung, Westinghouse, and the other SFLC lawsuit victims feel the same.
    Yes, they should feel it even more. Those "patent owners" sue you to death, but why you drop a tear for them, when they steal?

    Toshiba, LG and Philips show you the GPL license on 42" inch screen and do not steal. No problems!


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Probably anarchy in sense that everyone can do what he want with bsd licensed software and where there aren't rules there's anarchy.

    Exactly.
    BSD: Bunch of proprietary masters making money on libraries debugged by students and community. BSD is just another lucrative possiblity to make more money on leasing licensed crap. This is just modern form of slavery on information. Payed money is nothing but patented cow milking.

    GPL: Customers(I,you,them,IBM,NSA,etc) gather together on internet and set a goal. They put effort which is technology, time, money, skills all together to create the result they want. Everyone is free to fork and to upstream. This is decentric development that creates non-repetative code and insures it always stays accessible for futher evolution on similar conditions. This is modern form of application development. Payed money is used exactly to push features further.

    GPL isnt comminist, this is very stupid analogy.

    Information has different, mirrored nature compared material things.

    Words are distributed by saying them again, sharing them. They extinguish if they stop being repeated. This is similar hat code, or anything intellectual is.

    Apples are distributed by moving, but not copying. If one eats and apple other wont get it. They dont dissappear if left somewhere.

    Apples(programmers, human resources) create words. Words help apples. The whole point of GPL is to connect this two worlds in a matter that none will get hurt by their different nature.

    Only within GPL information stays information and human work stays human work. No intellectual products or communist activity.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Gentlemen, you may keep talking about GPL vs BSD, but you should know that BSD is dying, only because of its license!

    It gets eaten from and not given back by Apple and co, as a milk cow.
    It gets contributions in form of non-usable always-beta code, as a debugging platform!
    Anything developed on BSD has strong chance to go into proprietary unpayed forever, may people prefer to ignore BSD because of this.

    The s3x has become so strong, that OpenBSD even invented their Blob Song.
    BSD is falling to the same fate as UNIX.
    And GNU is Not Unix.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sprewell View Post
    If you think BSD-licensing is just giving away your work, how is GPL any better? You think IBM cares whether they take your GPL work or BSD work? At least with the BSD license, anyone is free to close up sections and build a real business off the code:
    1) BSD license: Take the code and do whataver you want with it.
    2) GPL license: Take the code and do whataver you want with it as long as you keep it free.

    To me the first one favours anarchy, while the second one fosters freedom.
    Indeed with BSD you give away your work while with GPL you really share it.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    This is why bsd sucks, because nobody has to give anything back to the community.
    So how do Apple's contributions to LLVM/Clang fit in your world view?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    I have to chuckle, "GPL the savior of all", yet meanwhile the most deployed database engine happens to be public domain.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    So how do Apple's contributions to LLVM/Clang fit in your world view?
    License is only a part of success. Apple is interested in LLVM/Clang, so they contribute back, because if they help to make it better, it will better serve them. They don't have to contribute back while they're using BSD code. If there are two identical groups of developers and they're working on exactly the same projects (one is GPL and another one is BSD or similar) there are such possibilities (of course it's very simplified):

    BSD project:

    - advantages of Open Source development model,
    - there's an option some companies which use their code will contribute back, but they don't have; some company can take their work, close the code, add some extra and/or proprietary things and sell, so the original project won't be able to compete.

    GPL project:

    - advantages of Open Source development model,
    - companies which use their code have to contribute back/release modified code; if someone will take their work and make it better his better project will be available for the original authors and for the community.

    @Deanjo

    I have to chuckle, "GPL the savior of all", yet meanwhile the most deployed database engine happens to be public domain.
    You missed the points.

  10. #40

    Default

    some company can take their work, close the code, add some extra and/or proprietary things and sell, so the original project won't be able to compete.
    Hmm, FreeBSD vs OS X?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •