I dont think that you ever heard about freebsd jails, that should be enough for some types of virtualisation. Also it is partly possible to run linux drivers in userspace. Its not possible in kernel mode due to licencing but you can for example run linux usb drivers for dvb devices from userspace, so basically you can drive similar hardware up to a certain point. You can also execute linux binaries so freebsd can run to a certain degree the same apps/games. I don't get why ppl try to make one system so bad, usually there is always a usecase where a system shines.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Reasons Why You Should Not Use FreeBSD
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by LightBit View PostPermissive licenses have "5 freedoms":
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is NOT a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is NOT a precondition for this.
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others, under different conditions (freedom 4).
Copyleft licenses are more free from software point of view. Permissive licenses are more free from user's/dev's point of view.
I truly would like to know whether people making this point are just knowingly trolling - bringing up something they know is not actually true to avoid conceding that "permissive" license just doesn't protect those freedoms the GPL does or they truly believe in that kind of logically absurd proposition. If you're struggling with the realization of just how absurd that is, imagine that someone would propose additional amendment to the US constitution which would go something like this:
Last amendment) Oh and by the way you can disregard all the aforementioned amendments if you choose to do that
And then they would argue that such a constitution is obviously more free that the original as it allows you to do anything and abolishes all the nasty restrictions that were there previously. It would be a "permissive" constitution.
Everybody would look at anybody who would propose that as a loon and rightly so ... and that's also how I see the above mentioned "5th freedom" as you called it, it nullifies all the freedoms you had previously - from the standpoint of protecting software freedom it is just as absurd as the above amendment for the constitution.
The only way out of this is to just admit that you really do not care about those freedoms being preserved as you or the people advocating for "permissive" licenses demonstrably (according to the rules of logic) don't, otherwise you would use GPL that protects them - but saying that you do not care about preserving those freedoms doesn't look good so you probably won't do that and keep pretending (or fooling yourself) that you do care about those freedoms and continue to present an ability to take away freedom as a "freedom" in itself (and I'm sure the totalitarian regimes around the world would agree to that proposition)
Originally posted by HiragerI am just waiting for one thing to happen. For GCC folks to rip off the "wonderful" LLVM + CLang compiler code and adapt it in GPL3+ GCC suite. That would be so ironic... Hehehe.
I can't stop giggling at thought of it.
Relicensing LLVM/Clang under GPLv3 is exactly that and people should be happy that it gets exercised (why would they include it otherwise), yet you refer to it as "ripping it off" and we all know that is without doubt as many in the "permissive" camp would actually feel like. But why? Because the whole so called "permissive" charade is about making things "corporate friendly" - which means eliminating the 4 freedoms so they can monopolize their contribution and take away control from the users - it has nothing to do with software freedom. If you relicense to protect those freedoms they're not going to like you very much - funny that, isn't it
Why do you think LLVM is sponsored by Apple, I mean APPLE for god sakes! Could it be more transparent? The "permissive" licensing is the corporation's attempt at "damage control", they see that they can not compete with open-source in the long term so at least they try to make it so they can rip it off (and this is true rip off because they get to close it down) and eliminate the freedoms that made it so successful.
Does anybody really need more sensible reason why to prefer GPLv3 or copyleft in general?Last edited by Libreman; 03 June 2012, 12:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Libreman View PostSo you actually are claiming that an ability to take away the 4 former freedoms is a "freedom" in itself? That an ability to restrict others is in fact a "freedom"? What kind of an Orwelian corner of the universe I've wandered into - if this is not doublespeak I do not know what is ...
Comment
-
Phoronix, I honestly don't get why you always have to go with such a warmongering attitude. I get it that being a douche on the Internet=money, but is that all you care about? Setting the BSD users here against the Linux ones? The GPL supporters against the BSD ones? The KDE against the Gnome users?
Wouldn't it better to realise that both Linux and the BSDs rightfully exist (otherwise they would have already disappeared long ago) and that each one of them has its own use or purpose?
I think it would be much better to a keep to a neutral attitude, as is normally expected of journalists.
Comment
-
Originally posted by blacknova View PostHow person's ability to not disclose his derivative work affect original product? The person in question cannot close or restrict distribution of original product, he can only do that to his own version or derivative work.
People who advocate for "permissive" license don't care about those freedoms being taken away in this way ... and that would be ok if they would just be honest about it. Unfortunately most avoid conceding that point and keep pretending that's not the case because they know people care about it and if they were frank they would turn to GPL. By not being honest (either with others or often even with themselves) there is better chance some get confused into supporting it not realizing the above.
Also, it has very bad effect on innovation, if someone takes the code, adds his own improvements (and other stuff) and doesn't contribute it back (which is almost always the case if it's commercial venture) then the original gets left in the dust and the entire community loses an opportunity to improve it even further or add those improvements to existing systems - stagnation is the result, as is happening to BSD, it will die eventually. And UNIX commercial offshoots like OSX live on not contributing anything back. That is how "permissive" works, namely it doesn't - even if you overlook the obvious and very important problems about user freedom.
And another point, you said that "he can only do that to his own version or derivative work" but considering that in excess of 99% of the code was most likely written by others, is it really accurate calling it "his own version"? The buck really stops with those who've written it in the first place - they are responsible for the loss of freedom if they allow it. If someone doesn't like that the software was written with preserving user freedom in mind, they are free to write their own with different terms. So it really is about the original author and whether he/they want to preserve freedom or not ... a choice of "permissive" license says clear and loud that he/they don't.Last edited by Libreman; 03 June 2012, 01:39 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Libreman View PostThis has no relevance to the fact that by doing that he takes away those freedoms from the users that use it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kano View PostI dont think that you ever heard about freebsd jails, that should be enough for some types of virtualisation.- First, using this technology, you can't boot OS with a different kernel, even if needed. It's just kind of chroot.
- Second, it relies on quite thin layer to isolate things. So it's more hackable than, say, Xen (all kernel bugs vs small hypervisor code bugs).
Also it is partly possible to run linux drivers in userspace.
Its not possible in kernel mode due to licencing
but you can for example run linux usb drivers for dvb devices from userspace, so basically you can drive similar hardware up to a certain point.
You can also execute linux binaries so freebsd can run to a certain degree the same apps/games.
I don't get why ppl try to make one system so bad, usually there is always a usecase where a system shines.
Comment
-
Originally posted by blacknova View PostHow so? Users can continue to use original product and have access to it's source code without any restriction. How come they've lost their freedoms?
Comment
-
Originally posted by blacknova View PostHow so? Users can continue to use original product and have access to it's source code without any restriction. How come they've lost their freedoms?
How can you care about preserving those freedoms, consider them important and use a license that allows to disregard them? It's inconsistent and doesn't make sense. And indeed when you just talk with people from both camps you'll find that's exactly the case, people from the "permissive" camp generally do no have much problem with Apple's walled gardens, using MS or other exploits specific to proprietary software - if they do have any complaint it's just technical. It's the opposite in the Linux camp, many people care mostly about the freedom and are willing to even let slide minor technical glitches or inadequacies to preserve it in the hope it will get solved long term (which it slowly is happening, step by step).
It's not really hard to see the difference in mindset - of course there are exceptions in each camp and they tend to overlap but overall I find it quite accurate.Last edited by Libreman; 03 June 2012, 02:18 PM.
Comment
Comment