PathScale Gives FreeBSD, NetBSD A New C++ Runtime

[kraftman]

monraaf: the BSD community frequently use the term "proprietary" to mean "has source code that we can't touch or use", that they are able to view it under the GPL makes little difference to them, it's still code that can't be used in their software.

Saying proprietary they're simply saying bullshit. I will probably start calling bsd a shitty license.

Shouldn't the person taking the code respect the author's wishes without being forced to? If nothing else, isn't that just polite?

No, he shouldn't if he's working on some competive product. They're just fools if they use bsd license and expect people will give the code back.

[XorEaxEax]

Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people.

Ehh what? Isn't the whole idea with BSD/MIT style licencing that you may do pretty much what you want with the source code, so what is this about 'follow other's wishes'/'forcing religion'?

Now I realize that people who licences their code under BSD would like it if those using and enhancing it distributing those changes back under a BSD compatible licence, but they don't make that a condition for use like GPL does. And again I think that's very generous, but nothing in what you wrote up there makes me understand why it seems many BSD fans have no problems whatsoever with BSD code being used in proprietary projects, but get pissed when it's used in GPL projects. From a BSD perspective it should be the same thing, with a slight positive note for GPL since atleast it's easier should they want to reverse engineer any features from it.

[archibald]

I don't speak for the OpenBSD project, but what I've observed on the mailing list is that the developers are fine with people taking and closing their source code. What they don't like is large companies taking their code in its entirety, slapping a proprietary licence on it, selling it for lots of money and giving nothing back - behaviour that can reasonably called parasitic.

Such behaviour is permitted by the licence, but just because you're not explicitly and legally forbidden from doing something that doesn't make it a decent thing to do or mean that you should sit back and be happy about it.

monraaf: the BSD community frequently use the term "proprietary" to mean "has source code that we can't touch or use", that they are able to view it under the GPL makes little difference to them, it's still code that can't be used in their software.

"If the original author doesn't want his or her code to be incorporated in a program or library that's licensed under the GPL then he or she should choose an appropriate license that disallows that."

Shouldn't the person taking the code respect the author's wishes without being forced to? If nothing else, isn't that just polite?

[codestr0m]

The other stuff PathScale is doing really intrigues me, though. If they can get the GPGPU performance of Fermi on PSCNV up to a level near the binary, that would be a huge win for people who want to run a dedicated server using a Fermi card for GPGPU. I actually investigated a possible application of that for my own uses: using OpenCL to do real-time physics modelling using the Bullet physics engine and OpenSimulator. The hope is that you'd be able to push a much larger server-side physics workload in OpenSimulator if you use OpenCL to do the processing on a large GPU. The CPU would be freed up to do more mundane tasks that are less math-intensive, like keeping track of object and agent positions and properties. You could either run a large number of regions on a single server, or run one very physics-intensive region with a degree of dynamic content that we aren't used to seeing in OpenSimulator.

1) Pretty please don't use OpenCL
2) Please don't expect PSCNV to work with OpenCL (Or at least for PathScale to add support for it)

If you want an open standard for GPGPU that makes sense consider the *much* lesser known HMPP. It's a high performance directive based approach with sane syntax and scalability for x86 and GPGPU.

[monraaf]

It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork

You probably should look up proprietary in the dictionary.

which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.

If the original author doesn't want his or her code to be incorporated in a program or library that's licensed under the GPL then he or she should choose an appropriate license that disallows that.

[portablenuke]

It's funny therefore that many times BSD fans seem to be just fine with their code being used in proprietary programs while getting pissed when it's used in GPL licenced programs, what gives?

It's already an open source license, so you're not liberating the code. GPLing the code creates a proprietary fork which would force the original project to use GPL code if they wanted merge changes back in, and if the original author wanted the code under the GPL, the coder would have used the GPL in the first place.

Basically, one person doesn't respect the other person enough to follow the other's wishes. It's like people forcing their religion on other people. If people want to worship Zorba and coat themselves in corn syrup, they can, but don't make everyone else do it.

Other people have explained it better then I have, so ask around. Try forums.freebsd.org.

[Ex-Cyber]

And it's not like you can download the whole XNU kernel and a bunch of OS X libraries source code from http://www.opensource.apple.com/.

Oh, wait...

Yeah, how generous of Apple to release source packages whose build scripts depend on their proprietary build tools, which they only provide for their proprietary operating system, which they only provide for their proprietary hardware.

Oh, wait...

[kraftman]

What is the difference between MS/Apple taking that code and not 'giving back' and Linux developers which also take that BSD code, change the license to GPL and also do not 'give back' anything since the code is GPL now.

Linux is the same kind of parasite that MS/Apple are here.

Haha, but the point was bsd gets screwed, because of its stupidity. Or... maybe they simply like supporting Linux, MS, Apple and others.

... and You should finally UNDERSTAND what BSD license is all about, a free code that does not have any strings attached to it, there is no 'forced (lack of) freedom' like with GPL, its REALLY FREE code and You know what?

To be really FREE you have to follow rules. The bsd doesn't give freedom to protect your own code.

[XorEaxEax]

I call it the BSD disjunction.

Nonsense, the programmer is always right, he/she will choose the correct licence for his/her code.

Those who want to release code as BSD/MIT, incredibly generous in my opinion, nothing wrong with that.

Those who want changes to their code be distributed aswell (GPL), nothing wrong with that.

Those who want money for letting you use their code, nothing wrong with that.

What is the difference between MS/Apple taking that code and not 'giving back' and Linux developers which also take that BSD code, change the license to GPL and also do not 'give back' anything since the code is GPL now.

Linux is the same kind of parasite that MS/Apple are here.

This is what I don't get with certain BSD afficionados, first they pound their chest while saying Oh! BSD is so free that you can do whatever you want with it, and then they say those who do are parasites? And I would say that there's quite a difference between proprietary code and GPL code, as someone who has actually done alot of reverse-engineering in my days I can tell you that it's insanely easier to (clean-room) reverse-engineer from source code than it is from proprietary software. So from a BSD standpoint, although the best situation would be that changes be distributed under a BSD-compatible licence, but if not then GPL licenced source code sure is better than proprietary should they want to implement the same functionality. It's funny therefore that many times BSD fans seem to be just fine with their code being used in proprietary programs while getting pissed when it's used in GPL licenced programs, what gives?

Yeah, Apple never contributes anything. It's not like they funded the entire LLVM project...

No they didn't, LLVM existed long before Apple started to support it.

[tkmorris]

Yeah, Apple never contributes anything. It's not like they funded the entire LLVM project... And they never had anything to do with Webkit. And it's not like you can download the whole XNU kernel and a bunch of OS X libraries source code from http://www.opensource.apple.com/.

Oh, wait...

WebKit is a fork of Khtml, which makes both LGPL. And even Apple being obligated to show up or pay up, and they don't show all the code, nor pay all the developers.

http://www.osnews.com/comments/24705

Also, if your point is "code that is free to use", the XNU kernel is not a good example for you to use. Xnu is under the Apple Public Source License, so it's not GPL-compatible among other licenses totally "fine" with BSD license.

So the only "valid" point you made was "funded the entire LLVM project". Still, LLVM was open source from the start, and it started without Apple, Apple didn't choose the BSD-way, the project was already on this path.

Yes, it's true, they contributed, money to the LLVM developer and BSD license has nothing to do with it (since they took KHTML too).

I'm not arguing that GPL is better or BSD is worse, or vice-versa. What I don't like is this new "BSD purism", GNU/Linux on the other side still uses all code it can without prejudice based on licenses that are open. That's how open BSD seems to me now.