FreeBSD 10 To Use Clang Compiler, Deprecate GCC

[kraftman]

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back. And many Linux distributions are violating GPL, with closed source modules.

GPL is not so free. Copyleft per file would be better.

GPL is a very smart license and thanks to it Linux can compete with any other operating system. BSD aren't competitive, because everyone can take their code and advantages. GPL is here to protect the code.

[LightBit]

The source for IOS 4.3 webkit wasn't released AT ALL until they go lots of complaints, can you fucking read?

One trick about the GPL is that it *DOES* allow for delays, as long as they are 'reasonable'. The GPL also doesn't require that the code be available to absolutely everyone on the internet. They could make you request it on CD, and ship the CD at cost. (Yes, then the person who requested the CD could then post it on the internet - but there is no requirement in the GPL stating that Apple has to do it.)

And as Red Hat has shown, you can even restrict distribution to customers that paid you. Yes, THOSE customers can then redistribute freely, but the originating organization is under no requirement to make the source available to everyone who asks.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/10/apple-finally-releases-ios-4-3-webkit-source-code-under-pressure/

GPL can be understood in different ways.

[LightBit]

The code is there for everybody to use however the hell they want. That is the opposite of selfish.

The only restriction is on redistribution, and it means that you can't take what isn't yours and restrict your users the rights they originally had. That is also the opposite of selfish.

But GPL does that. For example: You include few lines of some GPL code into your program. You are foreced to relicence whole YOUR code to GPL, even if you had only slightly modified GPL before.

[XorEaxEax]

Seriously: You are talking bullsh*t all the time.

LOL, coming from YOU?

Bullshit. Did http://webkit.org suddenly disappear? No. It was just bitching that it wasn't available from http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Big deal?

The source for IOS 4.3 webkit wasn't released AT ALL until they go lots of complaints, can you fucking read?

[archibald]

I believe that all of Linux DRM + drivers are MIT licensed. BSDs could port that code if they wanted to. But nobody does.

FreeBSD people are porting that code, see http://wiki.freebsd.org/Intel_GPU. To quote the page directly: "Large parts of the code were taken from the Intel GPU driver in the Linux kernel". There is also an attempt in the OpenBSD camp.

<rhetorical>Is it not possible for GPL fans and BSD fans to discuss a compiler change without descending into licensing wars?</rhetorical>

[Awesomeness]

Even if that was the case what difference does it make? If anything it shows that Apple really want to be able to keep their enhancements proprietary.

Don't you feel embarrassed to show how clueless you are over and over again? Seriously: You are talking bullsh*t all the time. It's not Apple who keep any CUPS enhancements proprietary. The GPL exception is for HP, Epson, Canon, etc.. They want to keep their drivers proprietary and Apple lets them.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...evelopers.html

Bullshit. Did http://webkit.org suddenly disappear? No. It was just bitching that it wasn't available from http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Big deal?

[pingufunkybeat]

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back. And many Linux distributions are violating GPL, with closed source modules.

GPL is not so free. Copyleft per file would be better.

I believe that all of Linux DRM + drivers are MIT licensed. BSDs could port that code if they wanted to. But nobody does.

GPL is more selfish than any corporation.

The code is there for everybody to use however the hell they want. That is the opposite of selfish.

The only restriction is on redistribution, and it means that you can't take what isn't yours and restrict your users the rights they originally had. That is also the opposite of selfish.

[LightBit]

Linux code is available for BSD to use . They don't want it.

Yes, if they use GPL for all their code. Why Linux doesn't want ZFS?
GPL is more selfish than any corporation.

[fuzz]

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back.

Linux code is available for BSD to use . They don't want it.

[LightBit]

In my opinion the reason is that GPL ensures a level playing field for all participants in the kernel development, no one is allowed to keep their enhancements closed if they want to distribute anything with those enhancements. For a company to release some enhancement back which a competitor can snatch up while not returning the favor like with BSD will make little sense in the boardroom. Meanwhile with GPL everyone is bound by the licence to play fair. Certainly in a perfect world this would not be necessary and companies would just contribute back because it's the right thing to do and there would be no holding out, but in the world we live in I think that for collaborative development GPL makes perfect sense, even more so for companies which are generally the equivalent of an extremely selfish person.

Linux is selfish too. They take BSD's code and don't give it back. And many Linux distributions are violating GPL, with closed source modules.

GPL is not so free. Copyleft per file would be better.