Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[mrugiero]

Sorry, Ieft a piece of my post separated and forgot to merge it.

How do you think Apple is allowed to keep Mac OS X closed?

The fact the license doesn't mandate distribution of the source code doesn't mean they can change the license. They just are not obliged by the current license to release modifications. The code you add to it can have whatever license you want, you can license the patch any way you want (and this is a real world problem when you want to change the license of a project: every contributor usually gets the copyright for their patches, which means the change requires authorization for all and every contributors, or their code needs to be cropped from the project before the change). The code you based upon, can not. It is still BSD licensed, and that's why you have to copy the license notice.

HELLOOOO... aren't you listening (reading)? My project uses a very tiny portion of GPL code, yet THE ENTIRE project MUST BE GPL; I would have wished to release MY CODE under BSD (or whatever license I want, maybe GPL), but I am not FREE to do so. Of course I feel my freedom is being vulnered.

It doesn't depend on the portion of GPL code you use, as simple as that. If you want to use GPL code, you must accept the conditions, as with any software. If you don't want, and it was actual so much a trivial amount, it is an even bigger reason to just write your own, instead of using the GPL code.

Yes; their code is GPL and that is not going to change. Why does my code need to be GPL as well?

Ask the developers, they chose the GPL. Ask yourself, you chose to use their code.

Interesting... I think that the majority of end users don't care for this ' freedom'. I'm pretty sure they are not even AWARE of this.

Some does. And aside from Android and Firefox users (both of which are too popular because of other merits to be included in my reasoning), almost all of free software users actually care and know about this freedoms.

Yes; the GPL code is there for that purpose, same as the BSD code. The reason GPL exists is not to give 'freedom' to end users; it exists solely for giving the middle finger to corporations.

No, it is there to protect freedom. A specific concept of freedom. I thought we've had agreed on that.

[XorEaxEax]

Ohh, so you NEED to be COMPATIBLE with the GPL... Stop this rhetoric shit; it is clear the implications of using GPL in your project. I would like to license my code WITH WHATEVER F***NG LICENSE I WANT. That is what I said (my code with my ARBITRARY license).

To use GPL licenced code in your project your code needs to be GPL compatible, that is something even you should be able to grasp. That does NOT however, prevent you from releasing your code under any licence you wish, compatible or not, outside of the project in which you use GPL licenced code (or as is the case with BSD, if compatible with GPL you can distribute it directly in the project). So no, it doesn't prevent you from licencing YOUR code whatever way you want, the only effect is that it would be dual-licenced. Available under GPL as part of the project using GPL, and available under ANY licence you so wish outside of that project.

Of course you are a downright hypocrite in your complaints as you demand to be able to licence YOUR CODE WITH WHATEVER F***NG LICENCE YOU WANT, but you demand that others don't licence THEIR code under GPL.

Ok, Mr. BSD Expert... So now you are telling me that the average user cares about source code, licenses, etc? Are you high? Come on... NOBODY CARES about this. Worse: NOBODY IS AWARE of this.

Not sure why it would matter what the 'average user' thinks, the rights are theirs for when they do care.

Also, as I've stated over and over than developers are also end users, and thus have the right to recieve modifications of their source code, which is of course very beneficial.

Furthermore the 'average user' (whoever that is), certainly enjoys the fruits of free open source software, so even if they aren't interested in licence politics, they certainly benefit from open source. And yes, I'd say that the 'average user' is aware of open source and the benefits of it, free open source software is what killed the shareware/adware industry on the pc desktop.

Average and expert users alike quickly gravitated towards the free open source versions which were free of ads and spyware which typically came with the proprietary offerings. Just look at the backlash towards UTorrent when they started shipping adware and the strong rise of open source bittorrent clients.

I would like to ask random people on the street if they give a f**k about the license their computer programs are released under.

Doesn't mean that they don't benefit from it, and I'm certain that if you sat down and explained what the different licences mean, they would at the very least have an opinion on the matter.

I am aware of all this. The only thing I have to say against the GPL is when they use the word 'freedom', it is just that; I acknowledge its importance, and value it.

I don't like the word 'freedom' either, it's about granting rights (in this case to end users). Still no matter what it's called, how it works in practice is what is important.

Go ask Mr. Stallman why he created GNU and the GPL. He thinks closed-source programs is the devil.

He thinks proprietary programs are 'immoral', which is hardly the 'devil'. I don't agree with him, I think the developer has the right to set any conditions they want for using his/her code, which includes both proprietary, GPL, permissive, whatever. Only thing I find 'immoral' with proprietary code is trying to lock users to your program by using proprietary data formats for user data which can't be exported to open formats and be supported by competitors.

I do think open source is the better option, but again I see nothing inherently morally wrong with proprietary code.

I also see good reasons for a licence which makes sure that the source code stays open (GPL), and I also think that permissive licences like BSD and MIT etc are great. Personally I see them being best suited for different types of code/projects, but again I think every developer has full rights to set any licence they so wish on their code, and this is what these licences provide, choices.

And closed source only makes sense in corporations, where you need to protect whatever gives you an advantage over the rest.

No it doesn't, it only makes sense in a certain business model called 'artificial scarcity', it's where you hide the source code as some 'secret sauce recipe', typically in order to prevent the end user from making and distributing copies in combination with a copy protection scheme.

This is not something only 'corporations' do, individual developers have released proprietary code for ages aswell. Meanwhile both corporations and individuals have been releasing open source for ages.

[ninez]

Yes they do, and BSD/MIT are very poorly suited for operating systems. They're fine for some things.

In your opinion < but not actually quantified >, you mean.

Again, as i wrote above what you quoted; it's really upto the developer to decide which license is 'best suited' for their project. You may feel that GPL is better and if/when you release your own OS - then you should release it GPL. but that doesn't mean GPL is implicitly a better choice for another project.

[Sergio]

Once again: no one FORCED you to use GPL-licensed code in your project.

It's the same thing with any software, GPL or not: you have to respect the license. If it were proprietary software, and you somehow got access to the source code, you couldn't use those lines of code in your software at all.

If you use GPL code in your project, then you're practically (and legally) making your project a derivative of that GPL-licensed project. Therefore, the code you write must also abide by the GPL.

You may be able to get around this by not linking statically to the GPL code, then you can license your code as BSD and still use the GPL code. If that's not possible for you, then simply don't use the GPL code, and write your own. If it's only a few lines of code, I can't believe it would be a huge problem for you to implement it yourself.

You are explaining to me what I already know; don't like it, don't use it. Instead, what I am arguing is that the GPL is supposed to provide free code, yet I wasn't free to do what I told you in my project. So, as I said, instead of feeling the freedom provided by the GPL, I felt my freedom was vulnered.
Again, it is very clear that no one is forcing me to use GPL in the first place; that is not where I feel my freedom is being vulnered. The premise is that I use GPL code, with the motivation that it promises freedom. But then my freedom was clearly vulnered. So, if it is free, why is this the case?

I know that it finally reduces to what you think about 'freedom'; it is obviously a very difficult concept to deal with. But what I say is that it is not that simple as you guys want to make it look like; I'm sure a lot of people would feel the way I do.

You're quite hung up on words, aren't you? Free Software is a term coined by Stallman, so he gets to decide what Free Software means, and the meaning has become widely accepted, so Free Software means what the FSF says it means, DEAL WITH IT.

Ok, I shall deal with it (do I have a choice?). But it is not fair and quite unethical to call it that way, and worse, make people believe something that is not.
Stallman did not invent free software; it was always there, either implicitly or explicitly (BSD is far older than GPL).

GIMP, Krita and Inkscape exist, and are all open source. In many areas they're perfectly up-to-par (in some, even superior) to Adobe products.

Are you seriously telling me that GIMP is up-to-par to Adobe Photoshop?
Have you seen GTA? Have you seen Fifa 14? PLEASE tell me how could they survive giving all their knowledge away.

There are open source video games, they can be funded with crowdsourcing or donations or service-based models... or any number of things.

Video games is just one example; I'm sure you can come up with lots of other domains where your knowledge is your advantage, and what pays for the development, etc.

Also, a game company can easily release the game engine open source, and sell the actual game data as proprietary.

Could you give me an example as how can EA make profit out of Fifa 14 giving the source code?

Many people are not aware of / don't care about their civil rights and liberties in the "real world" either, do you argue that these rights are also unimportant?

Why do people think software is so special? You don't see a Free Automobile Foundation, or people asking their car company to release them their source code (their engineering, knowledge, research...). Yet every people's life depend on this. Take the example with whatever industry you like.
So, why must software be free? Why should software be treated any different than the rest of industries?

[Sergio]

To use GPL licenced code in your project your code needs to be GPL compatible, that is something even you should be able to grasp. That does NOT however, prevent you from releasing your code under any licence you wish, compatible or not, outside of the project in which you use GPL licenced code (or as is the case with BSD, if compatible with GPL you can distribute it directly in the project). So no, it doesn't prevent you from licencing YOUR code whatever way you want, the only effect is that it would be dual-licenced. Available under GPL as part of the project using GPL, and available under ANY licence you so wish outside of that project.

So, I can have my code (the exact same code) be GPL and BSD? So, if somebody takes that code, what license would apply? That doesn't make sense.
Being compatible with the GPL is PRECISELY what I am stating as the problem, as I explained already to "dee.". Yes, compatibility applies to whatever license; that is not the problem.

Of course you are a downright hypocrite in your complaints as you demand to be able to licence YOUR CODE WITH WHATEVER F***NG LICENCE YOU WANT, but you demand that others don't licence THEIR code under GPL.

FORCING me to GPL my code is what I don't like; I should be free to chose under what license (exclusively) my code should be released.
Again, the mechanics are clear; don't keep saying the same thing. I understand the "don't like it, don't use it" part. I also understand that if you use some code, you HAVE to do what the license says. That is not my problem. The problem is under the premise that I choose to include GPL in my project, GPL promises you that the code is free, and finally I see that I have to apply the GPL to my code; I am not free to release my part as whatever license (EXCLUSIVELY), and the GPL as it is. So, I ask: Where is MY freedom? Why do I feel my freedom was vulnered? Either change the terms of the license, or don't promise freedom (don't lie).
As I said, it is obviously a relative issue; different people consider freedom to be different things. But it stays an issue nevertheless, and I think it is useful to debate.

Not sure why it would matter what the 'average user' thinks, the rights are theirs for when they do care.

Why the quotes? It is clear what an average user is; my uncle, my sister, my friends... People who rely on computers to get things done. They don't care about, are not aware of, or even NEED care about/be aware of all these things. Then why do you think it matters? What makes you think that indeed they SHOULD have these 'rights'? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Also, as I've stated over and over than developers are also end users, and thus have the right to recieve modifications of their source code, which is of course very beneficial.

Maybe it does make sense for developers, yes.

Furthermore the 'average user' (whoever that is), certainly enjoys the fruits of free open source software, so even if they aren't interested in licence politics, they certainly benefit from open source. And yes, I'd say that the 'average user' is aware of open source and the benefits of it, free open source software is what killed the shareware/adware industry on the pc desktop.

Wow... do you really believe what you say? People don't give a rat's ass about these issues! COME ON! These average users go to a local store, buy whatever computer they find nice (maybe they know what MHZ's and MB's is, or try to buy a big disk for the music), go home and get their problem solved (generally installing Microsoft Office), or just enjoy browsing the web, listening to music and playing games. THAT IS IT! Don't keep fooling yourself that people are interested in these issues. Even people that enjoy technology and know a bit more than the average (maybe they can reinstall Windows) generally don't care about this; generally they don't even KNOW about this. MORE OVER! Even somebody that is really passionate for computers, that enjoy installing different operating systems... even then there is no guarantee that the person CARES about what you say.
So, only an incredibly small number of people, NECESSARILLY knowledgeable people (at least much more than the average) actually know about these things, and an even smaller group of people acctually CARE.
So, all this "end user rights" makes absolutely no sense. Even more, compare the software industry with any other industry in the world: Why should software be different? Why people don't care about the inner workings (source code) of their car, and yet no body makes a deal out of it? And your life is dependent on this source code! NO, software is no different than the automobile industry; closed-source makes sense (it is natural).

I don't like the word 'freedom' either, it's about granting rights (in this case to end users). Still no matter what it's called, how it works in practice is what is important.

I acknowledge, and even appreciate what you say; I've learned so much through open source (specially operating systems and emulators). I do find it uncomfortable to call it 'free' software, though.

Only thing I find 'immoral' with proprietary code is trying to lock users to your program by using proprietary data formats for user data which can't be exported to open formats and be supported by competitors.

Why is it immoral (ok, 'immoral')? Doesn't the automobile industry work this way? Doesn't ANY other industry work this way? Are you saying that this is 'immoral' in general, that is, does 'immorality' apply to industry in general? Or do you actually think software should be special/different?

No it doesn't, it only makes sense in a certain business model called 'artificial scarcity', it's where you hide the source code as some 'secret sauce recipe', typically in order to prevent the end user from making and distributing copies in combination with a copy protection scheme.

Again: Just like any other industry. Just like market really works.

This is not something only 'corporations' do, individual developers have released proprietary code for ages aswell. Meanwhile both corporations and individuals have been releasing open source for ages.

Ok. I appreciate, like and even contribute (modestly) to the free/open source community. But closed-source software makes sense, and it is even a natural phenomenon.

[dee.]

You are explaining to me what I already know; don't like it, don't use it. Instead, what I am arguing is that the GPL is supposed to provide free code, yet I wasn't free to do what I told you in my project. So, as I said, instead of feeling the freedom provided by the GPL, I felt my freedom was vulnered.
Again, it is very clear that no one is forcing me to use GPL in the first place; that is not where I feel my freedom is being vulnered. The premise is that I use GPL code, with the motivation that it promises freedom. But then my freedom was clearly vulnered. So, if it is free, why is this the case?

I know that it finally reduces to what you think about 'freedom'; it is obviously a very difficult concept to deal with. But what I say is that it is not that simple as you guys want to make it look like; I'm sure a lot of people would feel the way I do.

I'm sure a lot of entitled twits would feel the same way you do. There's code made by someone else, code that you don't own, and if you don't get to use that code whatever way you want, you feel "vulnered"? (Also, stop saying "vulnered", I'm pretty sure that's not even a real word).

Well, like someone else already said, you're a hypocrite. You think you should have the freedom to license your code in whatever way you want (including making it proprietary), meaning, you want the right to choose what terms you demand from people wanting to use your code, BUT you don't want to grant that same right/freedom to others. Hypocrite.

It's another person's code, they decided to use the GPL, because they want to use the terms provided by GPL as terms for use of their code. Your freedom wasn't "vulnered", you just got your panties in a bunch because you want to use someone else's code (for free) but are not satisfied with the terms they give for doing so. NOTHING about that is eroding your rights or freedoms in any way. It's not your code to begin with, so you don't by default have any rights to it. Only what the GPL grants you.

Ok, I shall deal with it (do I have a choice?). But it is not fair and quite unethical to call it that way, and worse, make people believe something that is not.
Stallman did not invent free software; it was always there, either implicitly or explicitly (BSD is far older than GPL).

And the FSF acknowledges BSD as free software. If the BSD's really cared about that, they should have called themselves "free software" before Stallman came up with the term. Your complaint here is absurd.

Are you seriously telling me that GIMP is up-to-par to Adobe Photoshop?

In some areas yes, in some areas it's lacking. However the flaws are compensated by other free software. Tell me one thing you can do with Photoshop that isn't possible to do at least as well with open source tools.

Have you seen GTA? Have you seen Fifa 14? PLEASE tell me how could they survive giving all their knowledge away.

What knowledge? There's nothing special about either of them. They're cookie-cutter games. FIFA isn't selling the game engine, they're selling the licensed players, teams etc. Anyone could do the same if they had the money to get the same exclusive license to use all the teams and players, that EA has. And it's easy money, cause the lineups get changed every year so they get to release another cookie-cutter game...

I wouldn't care a single fuck if those games went away. But both would be entirely possible with open source. There's nothing revolutionary about either game, they could still sell the game content even if the game engine were open source.

Video games is just one example; I'm sure you can come up with lots of other domains where your knowledge is your advantage, and what pays for the development, etc.

So now you're making it my job to come up with arguments against myself? Get out...

Why do people think software is so special? You don't see a Free Automobile Foundation, or people asking their car company to release them their source code (their engineering, knowledge, research...). Yet every people's life depend on this. Take the example with whatever industry you like.
So, why must software be free? Why should software be treated any different than the rest of industries?

Of course you don't see it, because the free/open source movement started in the software world, and even there it's taking some time to turn things around. That doesn't mean it can't be applied to other things, and it already is - there are examples of projects other than computer software where the open source model is being used. Open source hardware is already a thing, and there's no reason why someone couldn't do an open source car.

...heck, I googled this for fun, and it turns out there are already SEVERAL open-source cars in existence!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_car

Another fun thing is, with 3d printers becoming more common, we're going to start having lots of physical objects with actual digital source code. Open source is going to extend in a very real way to the physical world...

[dee.]

So, I can have my code (the exact same code) be GPL and BSD? So, if somebody takes that code, what license would apply? That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. That's what I've been trying to tell you, you don't actually understand how licensing works.

License doesn't apply to the code per se - it applies to the release, the distribution of the code. There's nothing stopping you (the author of the code) from distributing your code under several different licenses. What license applies to whoever gets the code, depends on under what license the code was distributed to that person.

If both code versions are freely available, then anyone wanting to use the code can decide which version (which license) they use.

Please, go read on this stuff before you come here debating on things which you don't even know about...

[XorEaxEax]

So, I can have my code (the exact same code) be GPL and BSD? So, if somebody takes that code, what license would apply?

Whichever of those two they choose to use, you are effectively offering the code under both GPL and BSD, it's called dual-licencing.

That doesn't make sense.

Of course it does, you as a code owner/author have the right to offer your code under any licence/licences you so wish.

Being compatible with the GPL is PRECISELY what I am stating as the problem, as I explained already to "dee.". Yes, compatibility applies to whatever license; that is not the problem.

What are you babbling about here? Whenever you are using someone else's code, your code used in conjunction with that code needs to be compatible with that code. That holds true for ALL licences.

FORCING me to GPL my code is what I don't like; I should be free to chose under what license (exclusively) my code should be released.

How retarded are you? Again YOU CAN choose EXACTLY whatever licence YOU WANT FOR YOUR code, but you are talking about using someone ELSE'S code together with yours. And when you are using someone ELSE'S code you are not just using YOUR code anymore, so you then have to abide by the conditions that someone else set for THEIR CODE which is the code you want to use.

Your insane argument is that YOU should have the right to set whatever licence OTHER developers should have to follow if they use YOUR code, but you get angry when other developers set conditions for using THEIR code.

How can you even try to pose such an argument? There's no logic in it whatsoever.

GPL promises you that the code is free, and finally I see that I have to apply the GPL to my code; I am not free to release my part as whatever license (EXCLUSIVELY), and the GPL as it is.

Of course not, as that is one of the conditions of GPL, and it is absolutely needed in order to ensure that the resulting code remains free. If you don't like the conditions a developer has set for using their code, then don't use it.

In other words you can have whatever EXCLUSIVE licence you want on YOUR code, but if that licence is incompatible with the GPL licence, you can't use your code together with someone else's GPL code. How is this hard to understand? You have NO right over someone else's code, you must follow their conditions if you want to use THEIR code.

Again just like they would have to follow YOUR EXCLUSIVE licence should they want to use your code.

If your conditions collide then your licences are INCOMPATIBLE and you can't use eachothers code, simple as that.

So, I ask: Where is MY freedom? Why do I feel my freedom was vulnered? Either change the terms of the license, or don't promise freedom (don't lie)

Not this insanity again!

Your freedom is that no one is forcing you to use someone else's code, you CHOOSE to use someone's code, and if you do choose to use someone else's code then you have to follow their conditions, just as they would be forced to follow your conditions should they want to use your code.

I explained this before with a simple car analogy, if I want to use YOUR car, I have to follow YOUR conditions. According to YOUR INSANITY this has somehow 'vulnered my freedom'.

They don't care about, are not aware of, or even NEED care about/be aware of all these things. Then why do you think it matters? What makes you think that indeed they SHOULD have these 'rights'?

First off it's not me who thinks they should have these rights, it's the developer who chooses to licence their code under GPL who thinks they should have these rights.

And why should people who wants these rights not have them just because your uncle, sister, friends... don't care about them? These rights exists for those who care and they don't cost anything to them who don't.

I've already shown an example in how these rights of keeping the code open has benefited 'average users' who don't know or care about licencing due to have it practically killed off the adware/spyware application industry on the pc desktop due to people instead flocking to the fully open source free software alternatives which weren't filled with the above crap.

So it doesn't matter if you as an end user specifically use one of these rights (examine, modify, copy, run modifications), you still benefit from their existance as there's pretty much always someone else who makes use of them and then release their results which anyone can use, including those who don't directly make use of said rights.

Why is it immoral (ok, 'immoral')? Doesn't the automobile industry work this way?

There's something wrong with your reading comprehension, I said that I find programs which locks USER DATA (in other words data which I as a user create) into proprietary formats which can't be exported to other programs immoral, as they lock my data to their program.

What the hell does that have to do with the automobile industry?

But closed-source software makes sense, and it is even a natural phenomenon.

Like I said I have nothing enherently against proprietary code, I just think it's the lesser option, but 'natural phenomenon', what's that supposed to mean?

[Vim_User]

In other words you can have whatever EXCLUSIVE licence you want on YOUR code, but if that licence is incompatible with the GPL licence, you can't use your code together with someone else's GPL code.

This is not exactly how it works. If a license is compatible with the GPL you can use code under that license in a GPL'ed project, but you can't use GPL code in your BSD (or other compatible licenses) licensed project. This is why the GPL is called viral, you have to use it when you want to use GPL'ed code, and that is why I would call the GPL greedy, you can incorporate differently licensed code, but changes that are made under the GPL are not allowed to be incorporated into the original BSD licensed project.
Here it is not that you don't have to give your changes back (which would be fine with, for example, BSD), it is that you can't give your changes back if you choose the GPL. The freedom of the GPL ends exactly when you incorporate BSD code, but can't contribute to the original project, unless you use the BSD license (or similar) for your changes.

For example, while the Linux kernel makes use of not a tiny amount of BSD code you can never make use of the GPL code in the kernel in the BSD kernel. This is where your freedom ends. Being compatible with the GPL always means "Hey, you can use that code in your GPL project", but in no way does it mean "those licenses are compatible, so you can use this GPL code for your BSD project".

Both licenses have their use cases and both have advantages and disadvantages, but I can see why some people deem the GPL to be a license that is not as free as it is advertized.

[Sergio]

"dee." and "XorEaxEax", I understand your points and appreciate the time you have invested in responding. Is not that I can't reply to your latest points, but really we could go on forever; we clearly have divergent thoughts.
Sorry for using the word 'vulnered'; I am not an english native speaker (I think this was obvious).

I invite you to check out my project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/realboy/.