Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default Two examples why GPL brings more freedom into world than BSD

    I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

    We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
    This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

    The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

    Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

    Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

    Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

    Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

    That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

    So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    BSD doesn't bring the world freedom at all. In fact, it brings bondage, dependence and slavery.

    http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20...four-freedoms/

    BSD is literary the opposite of the GPL.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    836

    Default

    I agree that Steam on Linux is a good example how the commercial BSD culture of keeping novel things to oneself (temporarily or indefinitely) differs from the Linux culture of making them available to the whole community more or less immediately.

    However, I don't think that the situation would be better if BSD was also under a copyleft license. The PS4 is a closed system which is a choice by Sony, only afterwards they chose BSD. Else they would have simply chosen a different OS. An example where this happened is busybox, where Sony supports the development of the BSD licensed busybox replacement toybox instead.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    I agree that Steam on Linux is a good example how the commercial BSD culture of keeping novel things to oneself (temporarily or indefinitely) differs from the Linux culture of making them available to the whole community more or less immediately.

    However, I don't think that the situation would be better if BSD was also under a copyleft license. The PS4 is a closed system which is a choice by Sony, only afterwards they chose BSD. Else they would have simply chosen a different OS. An example where this happened is busybox, where Sony supports the development of the BSD licensed busybox replacement toybox instead.
    I agree to what you wrote.

    Funny enough busybox are GPL3 haters (yes, they are), because they thought (or were sure) GPL3 is "restricting" them the contacts to proprietary embedded system builders.
    These proprietary builders will now reimplement whole busybox as a BSD clone, completely leaving them no choice. Their project will be GPL3 incompatible, incompatible with more opensource licenses than GPL3 and, at same time, more restricting than BSD.

    Notably Linus refused to switch to GPL3 not due to the newer conditions, but due to impossibility of getting an allowance from all the kernel contributors.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

    We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
    This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

    The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

    Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

    Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

    Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

    Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

    That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

    So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.
    If the PS4 had used Linux, or Netflix, you may still be unable to access the content. I'm not sure why you're conflating two entirely different issues. Generally IPTV clients are implemented as userland programs, not in the kernel, so your GPL does not apply. SteamOS is totally different. By the way, Valve's Steam is still a walled garden and mostly proprietary so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    beetreetime, I refuse to ingratiate that blog with any page-views. I have already looked at it and it is filled with racism, homophobia, and stupidity. It is a mess and full of blatant lies that scarcely need debunking for their immediately visible absurdity.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JX8p View Post
    If the PS4 had used Linux, or Netflix, you may still be unable to access the content. I'm not sure why you're conflating two entirely different issues. Generally IPTV clients are implemented as userland programs, not in the kernel, so your GPL does not apply. SteamOS is totally different. By the way, Valve's Steam is still a walled garden and mostly proprietary so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

    beetreetime, I refuse to ingratiate that blog with any page-views. I have already looked at it and it is filled with racism, homophobia, and stupidity. It is a mess and full of blatant lies that scarcely need debunking for their immediately visible absurdity.
    As Steam is not obligating developers to do "exclusive releases" and DRM within Steam is optional - it is not walled garden.
    If PS4 or Netflix would have used Linux kernel, then the probability for them to release native clients would be substantially higher, simply because GPL makes taking parts and pluging into proprietary codebase unfavorable (yet not "impossible"), suggesting extending and contribution instead.

    If Valve would take BSD for SteamOS, then its nearly guaranteed that the console would be proprietary, and BSD client? Really?

    Furthermore, regarding "generally" thing - please provide me any info of an IPTV company that uses BSD and makes its client run on BSD.
    Until then, you posted nonsense approximation, sorry.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    As Steam is not obligating developers to do "exclusive releases" and DRM within Steam is optional - it is not walled garden.
    If PS4 or Netflix would have used Linux kernel, then the probability for them to release native clients would be substantially higher, simply because GPL makes taking parts and pluging into proprietary codebase unfavorable (yet not "impossible"), suggesting extending and contribution instead.

    If Valve would take BSD for SteamOS, then its nearly guaranteed that the console would be proprietary, and BSD client? Really?

    Furthermore, regarding "generally" thing - please provide me any info of an IPTV company that uses BSD and makes its client run on BSD.
    Until then, you posted nonsense approximation, sorry.
    That's because they can't. I'm sure Valve would love to if they could. They're pretty much the only name in digital distribution these days. As for the PS4 I have access to a PS4 devkit which includes source code to the system. There appears to be very little in-kernel modification; the kernel is merely used to host the PS4's libraries and frontend. With Linux you would have the exact same issue. If you didn't, the GPL would be less popular, because then releasing userland applications would be a legal minefield that no one in their right mind would dare challenge.

    And if Valve took BSD for SteamOS, there's no guarantee it'd be proprietry. Besides, it seems to me Valve hasn't done very much with Linux itself bar put Steam Client on top of it. What do you gain from that? No patches.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to IPTV and BSD. I was talking about the fact that IPTV clients are not kernel-land applications. Therefore they are NOT covered by the GPL.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JX8p View Post
    That's because they can't. I'm sure Valve would love to if they could. They're pretty much the only name in digital distribution these days. As for the PS4 I have access to a PS4 devkit which includes source code to the system. There appears to be very little in-kernel modification; the kernel is merely used to host the PS4's libraries and frontend. With Linux you would have the exact same issue. If you didn't, the GPL would be less popular, because then releasing userland applications would be a legal minefield that no one in their right mind would dare challenge.
    .. unless the userspace is completely BSD or GPL. Like what most Linux/BSD users use.
    Its a problem of restrictive licenses. One restricts freedom, other restricts denial of freedom and opensource just gifts code yet keeps silent on any other aspect.
    If the kernel component is licensed with a restricting license of different polarity than inside userspace, then there are clear interfaces defined.
    As of mines, minefields are dangerous only for those, who IFF as enemies
    Actually, in real world, proprietaries are much much more often seen setting and falling for minefields along themselves than for copyleft.

    Quote Originally Posted by JX8p View Post
    And if Valve took BSD for SteamOS, there's no guarantee it'd be proprietry. Besides, it seems to me Valve hasn't done very much with Linux itself bar put Steam Client on top of it. What do you gain from that? No patches.
    The chances Valve would release standalone client if it used BSD as base are equal to those of PS4 using Linux for their proprietary stack.
    Valve does not need patching kernel, the gain was the popularity, games and faster/better graphical drivers.

    Quote Originally Posted by JX8p View Post
    I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to IPTV and BSD. I was talking about the fact that IPTV clients are not kernel-land applications. Therefore they are NOT covered by the GPL.
    Ofc they are not in kernel space, at least for Linux-based IPTV recievers. Regardless if standalone or inside set top boxes.
    Because for BSD-hosted IPTV recievers I found none native client. What I get with regards to IPTV and BSD is a mess that runs inside a sealed blackbox.

    So if you know any IPTV client that works on vanilla BSD system, I would be interested to know. I found none - BSD is everywhere, but no profit (to choice, not just to wallet).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    99

    Default

    This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with licenses.

    If a company chose (choice being key here!) an operating system based on the permissiveness of its license, they were NEVER going to pick ANY copyleft system in the first place. If BSD didn't exist, they would have bought something else. All that extra appended complaining about media player compatibility is completely irrelevant.

    You want a company that supports Linux, right? Well, find an IPTV vendor that supports Linux and stop whining about licenses. The company decides on its product, not the license (unless they're stupid and don't read the license).

    Nothing to see here ... same old rubbish about licenses having magical powers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I was searching for an IPTV box today, and the research itself has given me some infos, I'd like to share with who ever finds it relevant.

    We know Netflix and PS4 use BSD to broadcast IPTV/access internet, yet BSD itself can't use Netflix or PS4 content.
    This means, with any BSD-based OS it is impossible to get PS4 content or watch Netflix correspondingly.

    The real-world example why GPL brings more real freedom into the world than BSD license in regard to consoles is obviously - SteamOS & Steambox - with ability to install Steam on Linux and access Steam content on "normal" Linux machine, as well as complete separation of software. Thus whole ecosystem can profit from Valve and Valve can profit from Linux. Win-win.

    Now the Netflix issue is still open. But today in a search of IPTV, I discovered that most IPTV providers of at least russian TV use Linux-based boxes. Aaand -..

    Linux is supported standalone. That means, you can take "normal" Linux box, install their program and watch IPTV. Or you can buy their Linux-based box and watch the same IPTV. Choice is yours. Funny enough, BSD is not supported by them. This is a direct link to the FAQ of one of the providers via g translate.

    Which means, I can directly purchase a subscription ignoring purchase of extra-unnecessary box, then get software and enjoy IPTV on any Linux box I have.I save the unnecessary equipment (++ to flexibility and my wallet) and they purchase a happy customer. And the DRM is not spread everywhere. Win-Win.

    Would it be done with BSD ... its unlikely to happen, as they won't be obligated at all, .. and BSD market share is.. I think I can predict what bosses would say to that, as they tend to cut costs.

    That leads me into the theory that other IPTV providers, like Sky (previously Premier) use BSD on their boxes. That would explain why there is simply no Sky client for BSD-OS, or in fact any other OS.

    So is it good to deny right to close software code as a necessity to have right to freedom of it? I think it really proves it, in a real world.
    Several questions here:
    - How does the license of the kernel impact the support of userland programs?
    - Are these IPTV software GPL licensed?
    - Are steam games GPL licensed?
    - Is there more obligation to release userland code on linux compared to BSD?
    - Windows is proprietary and has more support of games. Does it means that proprietary brings more freedom than GPL?

Posting Permissions

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