BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

[LightBit]

No. Quick, correct yourself.
Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.

Still CDDL code never becomes GPLed.
ZFS on Linux will soon be dead.

[brosis]

To prevent code being GPLed.

No. Quick, correct yourself.
Ok, I correct it for you.
It is to restrict the right to distribute the binary with mixed code of any GPL and CDDL.
Specifically because CDDL allows static link for no reason and GPL prohibits it.
CDDL does not prevent code being GPLed. CDDL is simply designed by brain-damaged Sun elitists, that failed to adapt and contribute to ecosystem and opposed the community.
So as a post-mortem "present", they left a CDDL'ed ZFS.
Which is shame, because I really loved Solaris.
Funny enough Oracle changed nothing about it, thus damaging its reputation as FLOSS supporter. CDDL did not prevent use of ZFS on GPLed systems.

May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Permissive licenses include copyleft and public domain; and contrast to prohibitive licenses such as EULA.
Permissive licenses grant the user rights, while prohibitive licenses reserve, limit or take the rights away.
One of the conditions to make sure the user really gets the advertized rights is to prohibit taking rights away, which is single restricted right in GPL.
Anyone who bullshits GPL essentially bullshits right to protect freedom.

[LightBit]

Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

To prevent code being GPLed.

[brosis]

CDDL is the best.

Yeah, incompatible with everything, 10 times more conditions than BSD, with same effect.
For example, static link allowed. If you want to allow static link, why not use BSD - zero difference.
Ugliness like MS EULA, but in copyleft area.

[LightBit]

What about WTFPL?

<a type="flamewar" value="off">
WTFPL doesn't do what you might think, because in most EU countries copyrights are not transferable. So removing copyright notice is not allowed.
Unlicense or CC0 are better, but still isn't public domain.
Releasing code to public domain everywhere is actually impossible.
</a>

[LightBit]

What about WTFPL?

No, WTFPL is pseudo public domain.

CDDL is great, because it protect your code from being GPLed and allows to be included in proprietary software.

[Rigaldo]

CDDL is the best.

What about WTFPL?

[LightBit]

GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.

GPL is strong copyleft license, because it protects freedoms.
BSD is public domain, because it does not protect anything it claims.

GPL is permissive strong copyleft.
BSD is permissive public domain.

CDDL is the best.

[Vim_User]

GPL is permissive license, because it permits to do anything, except removing the right to do anything. Because the right "to remove rights" contradicts with right "to do anything", it is not considered as anti-permissive. This is single exception to freedom within GPL.
BSD is permissive license, because it permits to do anything. Including removal of freedom.

May be you should try to use the same definitions as everyone else instead of re-inventing definitions to support your claims.
Copyleft licenses are not permissive licenses by definition.

A permissive free software licence is a class of free software licence with minimal requirements about how the software can be redistributed. This is in contrast to copyleft licences, which have reciprocity / share-alike requirements. Both sets of free software licences offer the same freedoms in terms of how the software can be used, studied, and privately modified. A major difference is that when the software is being redistributed (either modified or unmodified), permissive licences permit the redistributor to combine the licensed material with other licence terms, potentially adding further restrictions to a derived work, while copyleft licences do not allow further restrictions (among other possible differences).

Well-known examples of permissive free software licences include the MIT License and the BSD licences. A well known copyleft licence is the GNU General Public License.

Copyleft is "a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." By comparison with permissive licences, copyleft licensing places more requirement in terms of distribution and combination with software under other licences.

[yogi_berra]

Well considering that datenwolf didn't seem to do much if any research for his talk and spread misinformation of various projects (many of which Lennart had worked on) I think it was good for him to actually correct some of his claims. Lennart made the horrible talk at least somewhat interesting and fun. It's also quite usual to let the audience ask question and such during the talk.

Questions get asked during a question and answer period. Lennart was just being an asshole, and should have scheduled his own talk instead of hijacking someone else's talk to support his unnecessary projects.