Originally posted by dee.
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostWhy should I care about the market share if it serves me well?
Yup, Apple mainly causes harm and trouble. I'm with you on this, still I fail to see your point.
You miss the point that a BSD'ed software remains free regardless of all proprietary forks.
On Linux and GPL, it's different. Many corporations can work together, release their improvements openly, so that they benefit us all, because they know that that situation can not happen - the GPL ensures that everything stays open, no one can take the code and hide it to gain an advantage to others, and this enables corporations - even ones that are in competition with each other - to collaborate and share code openly.
And that's the main point which makes Linux superior, the GPL licensing. It facilitates collaboration accross many developers from many backgrounds and many corporations, and does it in a way that lets all of us benefit from the code. I say superior in the sense that Linux attracts much more developers, which means better support, newer features etc. If a BSD works better for your personal needs that's fine for you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dee. View PostYou shouldn't. You're free to use whatever you want. No one cares if you want to use BSD, but that's not what this was about.
Originally posted by dee. View Postlicensing -> low popularity -> less developers -> poor hardware support.
Originally posted by dee. View PostNo, you miss the point about how that doesn't matter. Why does Apple not release their modifications to BSD openly?
Originally posted by dee. View PostOn Linux and GPL, it's different. Many corporations can work together, release their improvements openly, so that they benefit us all
Originally posted by dee. View PostAnd that's the main point which makes Linux superior, the GPL licensing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cthulhux View PostYou miss the point that a BSD'ed software remains free regardless of all proprietary forks.
http://noordering.wordpress.com/2009...l-is-not-free/
And the other thing is the usual confusion about what "free software" is. For BSD, it means the code is free, and anyone can use it for whatever purpose they want.
The GPL means a program is (and stays) free. Nobody can extend the program without publishing the code for their additions. That means you can always examine the code for security problems, what formats are used for saving/exchanging data, fix bugs yourself, continue development/fork if the original developer loses interest/goes into a direction you don't like. A BSD application might get extended with proprietary extensions that make file formats incompatible, and make users dependent on the developer to fix bugs and continue development.
In other words, BSD means "freedom for developers" while GPL means "freedom for users" - and since there are much more users than developers it obviously follows that GPL > BSD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View PostIf the developer wanted their library to be used in proprietary programs, they wouldn't have chosen the GPL.
I, for one, make my money as a web developer for a small company which requires libraries to be licensed under a license which allows us to keep our sources closed. The GPL basically would deny us to work at all.
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View PostFor BSD, it means the code is free, and anyone can use it for whatever purpose they want.
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View PostThat means you can always examine the code for security problems
Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View PostIn other words, BSD means "freedom for developers" while GPL means "freedom for users" - and since there are much more users than developers it obviously follows that GPL > BSD.
Also, how does the BSD license decrease a user's freedom? Which part of FreeBSD is closed source, for example, avoiding anyone to review it?
Comment
Comment