Richard Stallman Calls LLVM A "Terrible Setback"

[erendorn]

You have not responded to my point, I never claimed all permissively licensed code is dying.
I was saying the BSD OS's are dying, as would Linux if it was also permissively licensed. The fact is most Linux improvements come from corporations, while some commits may have been donated willingly, we know historically this is far from a given.

BSD receives less contributions than linux for mostly the same reason than hurd (which is not permissive): it's because linux exists and took of.

[mrugiero]

I told about it. BSDs are the Unix dad, it won't die because OS X, Linux, GNU, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Windows (I know, it's not Unix) depends on BSDs. OS X is almost-BSD, GNU/Linux has copied some wi-fi drivers from OpenBSD, the UNIX OSs have so much code from BSDs, Windows copied the TCP/IP stack from BSD, so...you are wrong.

Dads sometimes die. And the fact some other projects use BSD code doesn't help to keep them alive, they need those projects giving back to keep them alive, and of all the projects you listed, only OS X gives some things back to the BSDs.

Because of that Linux today is a shit if it isn't Android. Companies are helping Linux because of Android, there isn't any BSD OS for mobiles (iOS is not BSD!), mobile is fashion now.

Actually, this has nothing to do with Linux development. You see, Google doesn't really work with upstream. Android is a completely different OS on the user space, so when someone talks about contributing to Linux, they either refer to the desktop/server user land or to the kernel itself. For the kernel, other companies don't do a thing because of Android, because Google takes care of that part. Companies committing to the kernel, do so because they use them mostly in servers or desktop. Companies committing to the desktop/server user land are not thinking in Android precisely. In fact, most of them are thinking in competing against Android.

GNU/Linux today is shit, because today GNU/Linux = Ubuntu, there isn't alternative! Ubuntu's fanboys hate when their OS receive a critique or when Canonical receive, they expand Ubuntu like LINUX IS THE BEST, but when you speak about a non-Ubuntu distro they say GO TO UBUNTU, THE BEST DISTRO or YOU ARE NOTE USING UBUNTU, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING YOU NEED UBUNTU. Debian doesnt' exists and Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, Salckware, etc too. So the preference is non-Linux systems like BSD because theirs users have much more knowledge about operating systems and including GNU/Linux than the Ubuntu-like-users.

Judging an OS based on the amount of fanboys is quite the bad policy, IMO. There is a big amount of stupid Ubuntu fanboys, so? That doesn't make the OS any better nor any worse.

If you like to acquire more knowledge go to BSDs because you can't depend on noob users with Windows/OSX/Ubuntu mentality...or go to Solaris

Or just use Arch or Gentoo... In fact, if you are really willing to learn things, you can use whatever you like, you just need to know how to look for things. If you want to use Ubuntu but learn things, you can help yourself with Debian's and Ubuntu's wiki.

[brosis]

Ok people, put the ON button on your brains again. Free will has nothing to do with human liberties and rights. My free will can be to kill you for my own benefit. All freedoms have limitations and restrictions, your right and your freedom ends where another person's right and freedom start, plus that someone has the right to defend him self when you attack his freedom even when he crushes yours.

Practical example: Someone can actual takeover a BSD program by use it to develop something closed. Someone will say "but as the first thing remains open", no, the closed remake can be exactly in the direction that the original designed to go, so the original can be actually stopped. So BSD cannot even do the simplest, protect the actual open knowledge. If Linux was BSD, it would be taken over by now. We wouldn't be able to freely develop it and they would ask as to stop.

Pretty much - yes.
Though there are two use cases within BSD, omitting the use case - where software is a protocol (.org's RFC) or software is not the selling point (driver dev):
- small developer, that basically sells some rights for exchange of price, and
- large developer company, that not only sells some rights in exchange of price, but also demands and wants to exercise control not only over software, but all over the branch. They use proprietary to terraform the - no, not ecosystem; those who are just smaller.

The key difficulty with GPL for a regular developer is how to get paid. But, if developer starts thinking outside of the box and stops selling copies, but starts selling actual contributions or support (adaptation, service, development - all that is "contribution"), then it will work.

Likewise, outside of GPL, this model turns very bad. Think of pay-to-win games and opencore, this still has all the oppression toolset in place.

Stop already that cheap rethroic, please... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will)

Replacing complex questions with even more complex answers gets one nowhere. I prefer real-life practice to cloud philosophies, thank you.

[profoundWHALE]

Practical example: Someone can actual takeover a BSD program by use it to develop something closed. Someone will say "but as the first thing remains open", no, the closed remake can be exactly in the direction that the original designed to go, so the original can be actually stopped. So BSD cannot even do the simplest, protect the actual open knowledge. If Linux was BSD, it would be taken over by now. We wouldn't be able to freely develop it and they would ask as to stop.

The ONLY part that can be proprietary is anything on top of the original or modified from the original. In many cases, that's all the want to do, they want a platform that they can build off of but don't need to maintain that said base. It means they get their product out the door and it works with or easily replaces other proprietary code because they are all building on the same base.

[Sergio]

Replacing complex questions with even more complex answers gets one nowhere. I prefer real-life practice to cloud philosophies, thank you.

What does it mean "Replacing complex questions with even more complex answers"? Are you saying that you are replacing a complex question with a simple answer? If so, why do you acknowledge the complexity of the question, but refuse to acknowledge the complexity of an (possible) answer? That doesn't make sense to me: you either accept that to difficult questions come complex (if any) answers, or you don't bother questioning in the first place.

[erendorn]

The ONLY part that can be proprietary is anything on top of the original or modified from the original. In many cases, that's all the want to do, they want a platform that they can build off of but don't need to maintain that said base. It means they get their product out the door and it works with or easily replaces other proprietary code because they are all building on the same base.

He is saying that if someone creates a proprietary program that replicates an open source one and then give the binary away for free while taking the maintenance burden all on itself, and developing awesome new features but still as freeware, and doing quick bug fixes for everyone with a good track record of long term support for legacy corporate client, then people will abandon the open source base project, and that if the source disappears from the internet and everyone's PC, it will effectively have been closed.
And I must admit that if that happens, sure, a BSD project can be closed.

[intellivision]

He is saying that if someone creates a proprietary program that replicates an open source one and then give the binary away for free while taking the maintenance burden all on itself, and developing awesome new features but still as freeware, and doing quick bug fixes for everyone with a good track record of long term support for legacy corporate client, then people will abandon the open source base project, and that if the source disappears from the internet and everyone's PC, it will effectively have been closed.
And I must admit that if that happens, sure, a BSD project can be closed.

The number of these hypotheticals that have actually played out in the way you have described could easily be counted on one hand.
The truth of the matter is that business will usually leave their product upstream compatible, because it requires less work and hence is usually cheaper in the long run.

[nanonyme]

Of course, ultimately this article isn't about what license *you* should use. It's about Stallman being frightened that the GPL ecosystem itself, which tries to force people to write opensource program code by offering an arsenal of technological innovations that can be built on top of only by writing opensourced code, will cumble down. It's not about GPL vs BSD per se. FreeBSD and folks are good projects that produce opensource code and I doubt Stallman would claim otherwise. It's just that the BSD code will not benefit the GPL ecosystem as it doesn't add more innovations you have to write opensource code to use. The primary foes GPL is battling against are Apple and Microsoft. GPL has pretty big opponents but it's made up a pretty good fight thus far. While I'm not entirely sure I agree with this ideology, it does make a considerable amount of sense.

[erendorn]

The primary foes GPL is battling against are Apple and Microsoft. GPL has pretty big opponents but it's made up a pretty good fight thus far.

I think the key concept here is "battling", "foe", and "fight", which leads to the "If you are not with us you are with them" type of hate.
The permissive crowd is (generalizing a bit here) much less into the conflict rhetoric.

[Guest]

The GPL tells me I can't license my additions to your software how I see fit. That is a restriction. That makes it free only if you redefine free to mean something other than free.

Redefining words was one of Eric Arthur Blair's key criticisms of Stalinism in 1984, do you really want to go there?

Yeah and playing strawman can be even worse. GPL gives freedom to code unlike BSD which allows the code to be included into proprietary products thus enslaved, stolen etc.