Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 85

Thread: ATI R300 Mesa, Gallium3D Compared To Catalyst

  1. #71
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    My only real point is that I dislike the negative conotation of the world leech as it was used earlier. Developers who use the BSD/MIT licenses do so because they want their code to be used by others, whether those others give back or not.

    So while the FreeBSD DRM developer (as their really is only one at this point) may be a leech by some arbitrary Wikipedia definition (which probably a large percentage of the users on this board, and in general, would fall under), I have to disagree with that particular classification.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Just for the record I wasn't calling the person who is porting the Linux graphics stack to FreeBSD a leech. My comment was more targeted at the BSD community, who have shown a great deal of hostility towards Linux yet at the same time are depending on handouts coming from the Linux side. Same goes for the rabid GPL hatred and gcc usage with the BSD community.

    I guess the old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you" isn't very well known within the BSD community.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monraaf View Post
    Just for the record I wasn't calling the person who is porting the Linux graphics stack to FreeBSD a leech. My comment was more targeted at the BSD community, who have shown a great deal of hostility towards Linux yet at the same time are depending on handouts coming from the Linux side. Same goes for the rabid GPL hatred and gcc usage with the BSD community.

    I guess the old saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you" isn't very well known within the BSD community.
    Fascinating... So you look at the reactions of a few vocal idiots and assume that applies to the BSD community. I think you'll find very little GPL hatred, per se, in the BSD community, just a preferences for MIT/BSD software over GPL software, and a desire to remove GPL software from the base BSD distributions.

    By your logic, I could look at the linux community and say that it consists of fools who only use linux because they hate Windows. You and I both know that's not true. There are some vocal folks who only use linux because they hate windows. That doesn't mean everyone in the linux community does so.

    As for these "handouts" coming from the linux side... I'm not really sure I understand what you're talking about. If the BSD developers are using code from linux, they must be following the license and releasing their changes to the world. Hardly leeches, in my mind.

    Adam

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    AFAIK the only "anti-GPL" sentiment from the BSD community comes from the fact that if BSD/MIT/X11 code is relicensed to GPL (which is allowed) then enhanced, the resulting changes can not be brought back into BSD without effectively GPL-ifying the entire BSD stack, so the changes end up not being available to the BSD community.

    If the same work is done while keeping a BSD license on the code (BSD code can be used in a GPL project) then changes can flow both ways.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    I really don't even think the BSD folks care that much about those kinds of situations, from what I've seen on the mailing lists and forums. As I said above, they chose their license specifically to allow for code to be relicensed in other projects.

    I know there was some animosity a while back when BSD code was code in a public git or cvs repo for some linux driver, stripped of all copyright. But that's certainly deserved :-)

    Adam

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Depending on your definition of member, I could be considered a member of the BSD community. I like BSD, I use it, and for my own work I prefer the BSD licence.

    I'm not sure about FreeBSD, but OpenBSD uses GCC because there isn't another compiler that will do the job. They have stated that if there was a BSD-licensed compiler that did what they needed then they would drop GCC. It's not a situation they're happy with, but if I recall correctly then the alternative is to drop support for all platforms apart from i386.

    monraaf: *cough* OpenSSH *cough*

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamk View Post
    I know there was some animosity a while back when BSD code was code in a public git or cvs repo for some linux driver, stripped of all copyright. But that's certainly deserved :-)

    Adam
    Yeah, now it's coming back to me. There was a problem with copyright headers that started the whole debate, and everything kinda escalated from there.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    AFAIK the only "anti-GPL" sentiment from the BSD community comes from the fact that if BSD/MIT/X11 code is relicensed to GPL (which is allowed) then enhanced, the resulting changes can not be brought back into BSD without effectively GPL-ifying the entire BSD stack, so the changes end up not being available to the BSD community.
    Yeah, and if somebody takes BSD licensed code and turns it proprietary the resulting changes also do not end up being available for the BSD community. But they don't seem to have any problems with that. In fact for the proprietary case it's even one of the key features they advertise with.

    If the same work is done while keeping a BSD license on the code (BSD code can be used in a GPL project) then changes can flow both ways.
    Well, in the case of the code of the graphics stack it's really flowing one way, despite the liberal license. But besides that and in general as I mentioned before there are also third parties who can turn BSD licensed code proprietary and keep their modifications for themselves. Some people don't have any problems with that. That's their right and their choice. Other people however do not feel anything for that and prefer to release their code and/or contribute to projects with a reciprocal license such as the GPL. That's also their right and their choice, and they should not be hated for that.

    Bottom line is that there are people who will not contribute to some projects because of the license of the project. If and how much this affects the Linux graphics stack it's hard to tell, but the fact remains that there aren't any contributions coming in from the BSD camp, despite the liberal license.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibald View Post
    Depending on your definition of member, I could be considered a member of the BSD community. I like BSD, I use it, and for my own work I prefer the BSD licence.

    I'm not sure about FreeBSD, but OpenBSD uses GCC because there isn't another compiler that will do the job. They have stated that if there was a BSD-licensed compiler that did what they needed then they would drop GCC. It's not a situation they're happy with, but if I recall correctly then the alternative is to drop support for all platforms apart from i386.

    monraaf: *cough* OpenSSH *cough*
    I don't think you'll find many in the Linux community who have some kind of hatred against BSD/MIT/X11 license. There are people who'd rather not contribute to projects under such license, but they don't hate it.

    You see that's the difference. It's a fact that there's a lot of hatred against the GPL license, maybe not by you. But it's definitely there in the BSD community.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monraaf View Post
    You see that's the difference. It's a fact that there's a lot of hatred against the GPL license, maybe not by you. But it's definitely there in the BSD community.
    There's no such fact. There's just your opinion that there's a lot of hatred against the GPL license.

    I'm quite sure I could find at least a few people in the linux community that hate the BSD license. That doesn't mean "there's a lot of hatred" against it.

    Adam

Posting Permissions

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