BSD forums now censoring discussions related to BSD licence usage

[endman]

http://forums.freebsd.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=44205

From what I can gather here, there are now members and users within FreeBSD who are starting to question the usage of the BSD license by the BSD projects. They are also starting to question the true nature and purpose of the CDDL’s existence.

This will certainly add fuel to the in-fighting that together with the BSD license itself has already cause BSD to be horribly fragmented and it’s not a good sign for BSD as coordination within the project will become impossible.

The end is near for BSD.

[JX8p]

The BSD license discussion has been rehashed many times on the FreeBSD forums. It's not being censored, the topic is there, but it was closed. If you want to discuss licenses (which will inevitably result in drama) discuss it elsewhere.

Kindly take your sensationalist claptrap and general nonsense elsewhere as well. The end is not near for BSD, the project co-ordination is fantastic, and there is no infighting (one insignificant newbie is not a keystone of the community).

[dh04000]

+1 JX8p

You nailed it.

[brosis]

There will be no end for BSD as long as there are proprietary companies. Likewise, there will be no end to proprietary companies, till there is BSD.
They sponsor BSD development and BSD-based utilities, they rewrite existing stack in BSD just for the sake of changing license.
More contributions they become - larger they evolve.

No one is ever talking about any "freedom" within scope of "opensource" licenses. Maybe you confuse something.

There is only thing you can do - don't contribute to BSD, its projects or proprietary companies that support it. Easy.
I don't think its wise to go on "license jihad" over it. To everybody - his own.

[JX8p]

There will be no end for BSD as long as there are proprietary companies. Likewise, there will be no end to proprietary companies, till there is BSD.
They sponsor BSD development and BSD-based utilities, they rewrite existing stack in BSD just for the sake of changing license.
More contributions they become - larger they evolve.

No one is ever talking about any "freedom" within scope of "opensource" licenses. Maybe you confuse something.

There is only thing you can do - don't contribute to BSD, its projects or proprietary companies that support it. Easy.
I don't think its wise to go on "license jihad" over it. To everybody - his own.

There will be no end to BSD until the last BSD user and developer are dead. That is likely a long way away

It's also highly unlikely that if BSD fell, proprietary companies would, too. That's just outrageous! Where do you get these ideas? They're so far removed from logic that I just can't think what your thought processes may be.

The BSD licenses are free. I'm not really interested in a discussion about the relative merits and freedom of the BSD and GPL licenses (as I've already said). However, if the BSD license is good enough for Stallman to consider it free (though he does prefer the GPL for obvious reasons), I really can't imagine why on earth it is inadequate for some. Truly, those who find it inadequate would do well to close their mouths, lest they show their foolishness to the world. Being more radical in one's support for free software than Stallman is a concept hard to conceive of.

Yes, you go and do that. Stop contributing to anything BSD licensed. I consider use of FOSS to be contribution, perhaps you do too. If so, you'll have to say goodbye to a lot of software on Linux, and if the MIT license is included (it is very close to BSD) you can say goodbye to X.Org and Wayland, too. But it's not all bad-- you've still got Mir .

[Sergio]

There will be no end to BSD until the last BSD user and developer are dead. That is likely a long way away

It's also highly unlikely that if BSD fell, proprietary companies would, too. That's just outrageous! Where do you get these ideas? They're so far removed from logic that I just can't think what your thought processes may be.

The BSD licenses are free. I'm not really interested in a discussion about the relative merits and freedom of the BSD and GPL licenses (as I've already said). However, if the BSD license is good enough for Stallman to consider it free (though he does prefer the GPL for obvious reasons), I really can't imagine why on earth it is inadequate for some. Truly, those who find it inadequate would do well to close their mouths, lest they show their foolishness to the world. Being more radical in one's support for free software than Stallman is a concept hard to conceive of.

Yes, you go and do that. Stop contributing to anything BSD licensed. I consider use of FOSS to be contribution, perhaps you do too. If so, you'll have to say goodbye to a lot of software on Linux, and if the MIT license is included (it is very close to BSD) you can say goodbye to X.Org and Wayland, too. But it's not all bad-- you've still got Mir .

You do know who you are dealing with, right? This is the same idiot with the multiple accounts (kraftman, Pawlerson, beetreetime, endman, CthuIhux, BSDSucksDicks, etc, etc). This is the same idiot who created http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/ (previously named antibsd.wordpress.com). The same idiot that posts the most stupid things you'll ever read in that blog and answers himself through endless accounts.

Just so you know...

[curaga]

If that truly is all one guy, he's damn persistent. All that trouble, and yet he hasn't even achieved any good 20-page flames lately.

[Luke]

Almost ALL web sites/forums are moderated

The BSD license discussion has been rehashed many times on the FreeBSD forums. It's not being censored, the topic is there, but it was closed. If you want to discuss licenses (which will inevitably result in drama) discuss it elsewhere.

Kindly take your sensationalist claptrap and general nonsense elsewhere as well. The end is not near for BSD, the project co-ordination is fantastic, and there is no infighting (one insignificant newbie is not a keystone of the community).

Very few people who spend time and (in some cases) money on running a website or forum permit the use of their own resources to attack them. I am will familiar with this, since I post political news coverage. I have to delete HUNDREDS of comments and block HUNDREDS of accounts by political enemies who post personal attacks and insults. I cannot imagine that the owners of a BSD forum would permit posts attacking BSD on a server they maintain. You can get away with attacking BSD on a Linux forum or Linux on a BSD forum, but forget about attacking someone with their own resources and not being "censored."

Censorship would be BSD going to court to shut up BSD critics on other forums, when they remove anti-BDS material on their own forums it is editorial discretion. Censorship means cops, courts, lawyers, and bullies, not controlling your own website. I don't see the BSD folks doing this, only the MPAA, RIAA, and that sort of folks! As for the First Amendment, that applies only to institutions of government. It does not say "BSD forums shall make no law" anywhere in the First Amendment.

[brosis]

There will be no end to BSD until the last BSD user and developer are dead. That is likely a long way away

Dead? You have strange perversions. Where did I say I want them dead?
BSD+proprietary put a nice show on Google Play market right now.
99% of applications are proprietary, 1% is open, from that 50% show ads or have restrictions, 50% are proprietary payware.
You like that? Good. Go out, enjoy. But don't forget to respect the different opinion, kay?

It's also highly unlikely that if BSD fell, proprietary companies would, too. That's just outrageous! Where do you get these ideas? They're so far removed from logic that I just can't think what your thought processes may be.

When someone mentions "BSD", the pro-BSD (or proprietary/BSD) folks seem to get acute allergy attacks. Your can't mention any "logic" within your allergy attacks - take your medicine, cool off and then reread what I wrote regarding BSD. Today, outsourcing via BSD, is a modern form of shareware development applied to source rather than binary. Nothing else.

Do proprietary companies rewrite copyleft stuff just to have it BSD-licensed? Yes they do.
Is BSD license the most widely used license for proprietary products? Yes it is.
You know, previously they tried to hire hordes of sweatshop coders from Asia to write proprietary stuff for them on per case basis. Now they understood, they don't have to do everything proprietary - the basic tools should have primitive licensing (like no patent protection, no 4-freedom copyleft) - just a bare implementation that they can use anywhere how they see fit and they claim it how have "freedoms". Freedoms for them, that's right. Just a more modern form of proprietary development.
Why else would you create tragedy about copyleft and how non-free it is in terms of forbidding to strip the persistent freedoms.

The BSD licenses are free.

They are not. You have zero clue. Where is word such as "free" or "freedom" mentioned in this license?
They are open, but they are not free.

I'm not really interested in a discussion about the relative merits and freedom of the BSD and GPL licenses (as I've already said). However, if the BSD license is good enough for Stallman to consider it free (though he does prefer the GPL for obvious reasons), I really can't imagine why on earth it is inadequate for some. Truly, those who find it inadequate would do well to close their mouths, lest they show their foolishness to the world. Being more radical in one's support for free software than Stallman is a concept hard to conceive of.

Its inadequate depending on use cases, not on persons.
However, with any free software, it plays no role whether its LGPL or BSD. It does play a role for proprietary. Why pay, when you can take.

Yes, you go and do that. Stop contributing to anything BSD licensed. I consider use of FOSS to be contribution, perhaps you do too. If so, you'll have to say goodbye to a lot of software on Linux, and if the MIT license is included (it is very close to BSD) you can say goodbye to X.Org and Wayland, too. But it's not all bad-- you've still got Mir .

I am not contributing to anything BSD licensed, unless its a piece of hardware that I need to get working and the driver is licensed into this way. BSD is arguably better for drivers than anything copyleft, because drivers are not the selling point - hardware and support are.
I did not understood why should I say goodbye to Xorg or Wayland, but its probably a reaction of your allergy. Intel thinks reference compositor is better with MIT, so be it.
And MIT is not BSD.

[Sergio]

When someone mentions "BSD", the pro-BSD (or proprietary/BSD) folks seem to get acute allergy attacks. Your can't mention any "logic" within your allergy attacks - take your medicine, cool off and then reread what I wrote regarding BSD. Today, outsourcing via BSD, is a modern form of shareware development applied to source rather than binary. Nothing else.

Do proprietary companies rewrite copyleft stuff just to have it BSD-licensed? Yes they do.
Is BSD license the most widely used license for proprietary products? Yes it is.
You know, previously they tried to hire hordes of sweatshop coders from Asia to write proprietary stuff for them on per case basis. Now they understood, they don't have to do everything proprietary - the basic tools should have primitive licensing (like no patent protection, no 4-freedom copyleft) - just a bare implementation that they can use anywhere how they see fit and they claim it how have "freedoms". Freedoms for them, that's right. Just a more modern form of proprietary development.
Why else would you create tragedy about copyleft and how non-free it is in terms of forbidding to strip the persistent freedoms.

Good... What you have mentioned is individuals (companies) using their freedom; you are free to use the code and contribute back. The code is there, and it is free. Nothing will change that.

They are not. You have zero clue. Where is word such as "free" or "freedom" mentioned in this license?
They are open, but they are not free.

Who do you think you are to tell me what freedom is? You might at least acknowledge that 'freedom' is a historically and fundamentally a tricky term. However, you choose to arbitrarily impose what you naively think freedom should be (or at least what is surely isn't).
You have got a lot to learn.