Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: MidnightBSD 0.4 Betters The FreeBSD Desktop

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    You need to static-link Qt and for that you need proprietary license from (pay to) Digia.
    If you don't static-link or don't release, then you can use GPLed Qt, but none of the proprietaries can do that.
    Would you care to explain just what you're needing to do with static linking that can't be handled by bundling the libraries into your package and dynamically linking them? The Unreal engine after all did this to great success (didn't have anything to do with Qt but all of the important libraries were dynamically linked so you could just swap them out) and it is a proprietary application. Only two I could think of are embedded applications and security, but if you're doing embedded applications you really shouldn't be bundling or doing static linking as opposed to linking to the system copy to save both on space and memory, and for security it's really nonsense because if the attacker has the rights to switch out the library then the system is compromised anyway.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3wu53r View Post
    What I find more interesting is their use of GNUStep and étoilé.
    Window Maker lives!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Would you care to explain just what you're needing to do with static linking that can't be handled by bundling the libraries into your package and dynamically linking them? The Unreal engine after all did this to great success (didn't have anything to do with Qt but all of the important libraries were dynamically linked so you could just swap them out) and it is a proprietary application.
    Yes, that's possible; but UI isn't most critical part of their application, so why not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Only two I could think of are embedded applications and security, but if you're doing embedded applications you really shouldn't be bundling or doing static linking as opposed to linking to the system copy to save both on space and memory, and for security it's really nonsense because if the attacker has the rights to switch out the library then the system is compromised anyway.
    Embedded when not low on resources, but strong DRM; or security in field with no network or direct access to code are my bets.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericg View Post
    Name your OS then. Because EVERY OS on the PLANET uses SOME portion of BSD code. Even the linux kernel has BSD code, every GPL project has SOME BSD code. So unless you're about to tell me that you went through, made your own operating system, used ALL GPL projects, checked the source OF those projects and if you found one file that was tagged as BSD-licensed you rewrote that file yourself, and did that for ALL components of your chosen operating system.

    So yeah, name your OS Brosis. Because you had to have written most of it by yourself.
    Meh, its Linux and it has no BSD license, just GPL.
    If it would be windows, it would be EULA.
    If Solaris - then CDDL.
    Or any proprietary OS that just gives a damn about BSD, simply stripping its code. Like windows.
    And how about Linux+GNU userland+Emacs+W3 on top of it? Possible.

    Either way, I claimed that BSD is parts-bin license and Cthulhux asked if my OS is without BSD code. Of course, it is without -- cut it, change it, copy paste it, rename it. Thing is - EULA protects the contents and restricts license modifications; GPL protects the contents and restricts license modifications. Parts bin license? How about companies releasing everything via BSD, not connected to BSD or partially (interfaces), but just "dumping"? Its like giving away the work. Never claimed if its bad, but its sure bad for a company. Its like carrying water in a sieve. Hence BSD is not a stable spot to build upon. Hence BSD OS is always awkward, incomplete or outclassed. Usually by proprietary equivalents. Because,.. if BSD dev's would realize that, they would have picked GPL license - unless they are actually proprietary developers, in disguise - or for laughs. Usually in disguise, because they start to shift from topic right on, or try to pick different argumentation vector.
    That said, I am not against people using BSD - its their own "problem".. Most of the times they are either working for proprietary or just can't afford a better proprietary solution yet misunderstand and hate GPL. "Full featured BSD", hehe. MacOSX is your "full featured BSD", get over it, Cthulhux.

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Not sure about Windows (MS has probably completely rewritten the TCP/IP stack by now) but AFAIK pretty much every other OS out there has some BSD-licensed code in it. Even if most of the OS code has a different license (eg Linux kernel and GPL) the BSD or X11 bits retain their original license...

    ... or maybe when you say "parts-bin license" that's code for BSD ?
    Two times on spot, you are a sniper, Sir.
    X11 and Wayland refrain from removing BSD license, because it would make no sense.. It would make Ctulhux cry -___- and reduce testing area for no benefit. Mir choice of GPL3 would be nice thing, if just Canonical won't be so hideous and CLA'neous.. and also, we don't want BSD guys to stick with outdated X11... I mean, they already have no systemd and are dying out of self-poisoning. We are sure no meanies,.. kinda unlike their proprietary chiefs they work for in prime time.
    Last edited by brosis; 07-07-2013 at 07:22 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Meh, its Linux
    ... so you're using code from FreeBSD. Point proven. Thanks and good night.

    edit: And no, Mac OS X is no "full-featured BSD", it uses FreeBSD parts for its (Apple) userland and (Mach-based) kernel, so it's pretty much a fork of BSD but not a "full-featured BSD".

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhux View Post
    ... so you're using code from FreeBSD. Point proven. Thanks and good night.
    Oh, do I? No, I don't. Its GPL, nite.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Oh, do I? No, I don't. Its GPL, nite.
    Most all Linux's if not all use Parts of BSD. OSX is using BSD GPL. the Main part of BSD tool's used in Linux Are Network

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    215

    Default

    I'm positive there is not the slightest chance that you don't have any BSD-licensed code on your computer. I'm also rather positive you did not manually read all source files for everything you are using as you'd know you were wrong.

    Also, "code from BSD" is not necessarily BSD-licensed. Welcome to the real world.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Oh, do I? No, I don't. Its GPL, nite.
    The over all project is GPL... but individual source files can still be BSD. The viral nature of the GPL doesn't actually go in and cut out the BSD license and replace it, it just overrides for the sake of the overall project. You have BSD programs on your computer, brosis, you use BSD software.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Yes, that's possible; but UI isn't most critical part of their application, so why not.


    Embedded when not low on resources, but strong DRM; or security in field with no network or direct access to code are my bets.
    Okay I suppose that's an answer for statically linking in general. I certainly have used a form of static linking for bundling the actually valuable resource files into the binary so that they're not so easily taken and messed with, but... what I don't understand is why you'd need to statically link in the Qt libraries in that situation. Certainly your DRM related libraries should be statically linked in, but Qt? Do note this is a serious question, you've got me curious about the usecase.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 07-07-2013 at 08:56 PM.

Posting Permissions

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