Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[Sergio]

Did anybody force you to use GPL code?

Hello.
Well, I think that is not the point. The GPL comes with an explicit promise of 'freedom' and, from that experience (having to GPL all my code although less than 2% is GPL), I think that promise is not fullfilled.
Yes, nobody forced me to use the GPL code, but then they shouldn't claim to provide freedom; at least I felt my freedom was vulnered.

[mrugiero]

Hello.
Well, I think that is not the point. The GPL comes with an explicit promise of 'freedom' and, from that experience (having to GPL all my code although less than 2% is GPL), I think that promise is not fullfilled.
Yes, nobody forced me to use the GPL code, but then they shouldn't claim to provide freedom; at least I felt my freedom was vulnered.

Yes, it is the point. You are claiming you were forced to GPL your code, when you weren't. You agreed to, because you chose to use GPL code in your project.
The GPL promises you can use the code for any purpose, not that you can apply any license you want to it. Those are different things. You can still use the code for whatever purpose you want.
And again, freedom is a highly subjective and abstract concept. GPL is free, according to some people's concept of freedom. BSD is free, according to some other people's concept of freedom. For the ones GPL is free, BSD would be as disappointing as GPL was for you.
They claim to provide and *protect* freedom. To protect freedom, you need to put some limits to certain freedoms, as the freedom to choose the license you want to use, at least from the perspective of GPL supporters it is that way. You can not expect them to agree with your view of freedom, or otherwise you are a hypocrite that tries to ban people from having their own idea of freedom.

[dee.]

Number of irrelevant archs > number of relevant archs.

Linux doesn't support "irrelevant" archs. It only supports archs that are actually used in the real world. Just because you're ignorant of their use cases doesn't make them "irrelevant".

Like what?

Sound cards, Wifi, graphics tablets...

Enforcing something means freedom? Oh.

Well yes genius, it does in many cases. Enforcing the law against murder enables my freedom to walk down the street without people getting to shoot me dead with impunity. Enforcing the law against theft enables your freedom to own a computer on which to run BSD. Heck, even the BSD license wouldn't work without enforcement. If you think you can do without any enforcement, you shouldn't use BSD license, you should just put everything to public domain or CC0 and let everyone use whatever license they want, including GPL.

And now count the number of Linuxes again...?

More people use and develop Linux, therefore there are more Linuxes than BSD's. What is it that is hard to understand here?

[Cthulhux]

Linux doesn't support "irrelevant" archs. It only supports archs that are actually used in the real world.

So does BSD.

Sound cards, Wifi, graphics tablets...

What's missing on FreeBSD?

Heck, even the BSD license wouldn't work without enforcement.

What does it enforce? Be more specific please.

More people use and develop Linux, therefore there are more Linuxes than BSD's. What is it that is hard to understand here?

You know the saying of the number of cooks and the broth?

What is it that is hard to understand here is in which way it is meant to be an advantage to BSD to have a few dozens new and partially incompatible Linux distributions per year.

[XorEaxEax]

Hello.
Well, I think that is not the point. The GPL comes with an explicit promise of 'freedom' and, from that experience (having to GPL all my code although less than 2% is GPL), I think that promise is not fullfilled.
Yes, nobody forced me to use the GPL code, but then they shouldn't claim to provide freedom; at least I felt my freedom was vulnered.

So if someone licences THEIR code under GPL conditions and YOU want to USE THEIR CODE under YOUR OWN conditions, your 'freedom has been vulnered'? Are you insane?

It is THEIR CODE, you have no right to it other than the right they grant you, just as I don't have any right to YOUR car. If I want to use YOUR car I must abide by whatever CONDITIONS you set for using YOUR car, or I can simply choose not to accept them and leave your car be. This does not mean that my 'freedom was vulnered', because my freedom does not extend beyond you right over YOUR car.

Again the freedom which GPL exists to protect is that of END USERS, now that does not exclude developers as they in the form of end users are entitled to changes made to their GPL licenced code in the form of source code, which is often a big draw for developers to choose GPL.

But the actual reason for GPL is to give recipients the right to the source code, to examine it, modify it, copy it and run the modified code, this is the 'freedom' which GPL ensures.

If you want the 'freedom' to deny end users these rights then you choose another licence, like BSD for example.

[Cthulhux]

It is THEIR CODE, you have no right to it other than the right they grant you

And the BSD license just grants you more rights than the restrictive GPL.

[XorEaxEax]

What does it enforce? Be more specific please.

It enforces the licence conditions through copyright.

You know the saying of the number of cooks and the broth?

What is it that is hard to understand here is in which way it is meant to be an advantage to BSD to have a few dozens new and partially incompatible Linux distributions per year.

As people are free to create a distro whenever they want it's inevitable that we'll see people make use of this possibility. And taking into account how much fewer BSD users users there are as opposed to Linux distro based users, the BSD's certainly have have equal if not more fragmentation given how many forks they have despite such a small user base.

The BSD license fully grants you the right to choose a second license of your choice.

Please point me to the part of the licence which says you can re-licence BSD code as a third party.

[XorEaxEax]

And the BSD license just grants you more rights than the restrictive GPL.

BSD grants the developer full rights and preserves none to the end user, the GPL grants the END USER several rights (and to the developer in the form of an end user).

[Cthulhux]

It enforces the licence conditions through copyright.

There is no "copyright" in the 2-clause BSD license. Check your facts.

Please point me to the part of the licence which says you can re-licence BSD code as a third party.

Not re-licence - add a second license.

BSD grants the developer full rights and preserves none to the end user

Which right not covered by the BSD license does an end user need?

[XorEaxEax]

There is no "copyright" in the 2-clause BSD license. Check your facts.

Are you retarded? Here is the actual 2-clause BSD LICENCE:

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
...

I mean seroisuly???

All software licences rely on COPYRIGHT (and no, public domain is not a 'licence').

Not re-licence - add a second license.

Where does it allow you as a third-party to re-distribute BSD-licenced code under another licence??? Show me where it says I can do that.

Which right not covered by the BSD license does an end user need?

How about the rights to examine the source code, modify the source code, copy and run the source code. If someone used BSD code and modifies/adds to it, the original source code will not cover the actual binary the end user recieves.

The only way to ensure these rights of the end user is to make them conditions, which is what GPL does (and actually exists in order to do).

If you don't want to ensure these rights or give them at all, then don't use GPL licenced code, simple as that.