BSDs Struggle With Open-Source Graphics Drivers

[yogi_berra]

If you had reference to insinuate that the majority Linux users are actually CLI-phobic I will concede your point but until you can I used myself as debasing reference.

You are a rounding error, not a debasing reference. Read the Ubuntu forums sometimes, you'll find that CLI use is the minority.

[KellyClowers]

loss

Wow, this thread is a loss. I have seen some flaming and trolling on these forums before, but I don't recall any like this. Oh well, at least I learned that the forum has a killfile. I hope this does not become routine though.

[brosis]

The GPL is not a permissive license, it is a copyleft license, the only form of license some people here on Phoronix (like that systemd troll) are accepting. So I asked to just remove the software with permissive licenses, so that they aren't hypocritical assholes, bitching about a license while using a system that heavily depends on software that is put under a permissive license.

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.

You asked to remove permissive license, which will leave you with proprietary (opposite) licenses like ... MacOSX.
Btw,.. VIM developer uses MacOSX, which is proprietary OS - not BSD OS. What "permissive licenses" are you talking about all of the sudden and why do you bitch and call people "assholes"?

[brosis]

You are just plain wrong... Remember the academic origins of BSD; its license, therefore, was motivated by the academy. All this predates the whole "my license is more free than yours" bullshit.

Nope.
The academic origins of whom? Both GPL and BSD are academic. Because RMS is MIT and BSD is Berkley.

The differences - three differences:
1) RMS' GNU is rewritten from scratch, where BSD is copypaste - for which they got sued by AT&T.
2) GPL is no less academic than BSD; but within GPL its impossible to develop something in open and then close it down leaving everyone behind (linking to proprietary is and was ok). That, unless two existing license exploits are present:
- GPL is not the only license or
- copyright assignment is required.
3) freedom protection aspect of GPL, which is completely absent in BSD - so BSD is Public Domain. You can go argue its not, but without protection of conditions (like in GPL) its clauses possess the legitimate power of a void.

Any way, this proves that BSD doesn't hate GPL, and that BSD does not support closed source; this is impossible, since BSD predates all this.

No. Not proven. If its "academic", software for study, it does not mean anything.
GPL is both for production and for study.
BSD is only for study, because it does not protect anything - its an advertizing license. Publishing any commercial content under advertizing license means making public domain. Nobody does that, except they have patent portfolio to cover it, or/and its about an interface to something bigger and they target large userbase by making the interface widely compatible.
For production for BSD, the license is EULA. EULA is extremely restricting, not much "freedom" left.

If I am to choose between freedom license that only restricts removing that freedom, and freedom license that does not protect anything it claims and I end up with EULA in result, I choose GPL for freedom license.
Because BSD freedoms do not work since nobody cares about them, its anarchy.

On the hate point,Someone says, the power is within the difference. But then, look:
1) Apple bans GPL
2) MS bans GPL
3) BSD starts replacing everything GNU with BSD, because.. GPLv3 is limits their freedom to remove freedom. <- this, nothing else.
4) BSD chooses Apple as its partner
5) BSD trolls start posting FUD about how BSD is free and GPL is viral.

Do not be surprised, if you loose GPL folks and will be dependent upon your new proprietary friends which hate freedom.
Not only you lie about freedom, you troll GPL and support the force behind anti-freedom proactively.
Do not wonder if GPL people will give a fuck about you.

So, you can see GNU/GPL as anti-proprietary movements, while BSD is really proprietary-agnostic;

No.
GPL started because proprietary endangered the whole existence of UNIX and is sole purpose is to remove proprietary influence over the code it protects. Influence, not proprietary itself.
Proprietary is free to link runtime to GPL at any level and hence cooperate on binary level.
You can see that GNU/GPL is not anti-proprietary movement.

Proprietary-agnostic = freedom-agnostic. BSD does not actually care about anything, it just advertizes 1)authorship 2)absence of warranty/responsibility

yes, you can 'steal' BSD code, but that was not the motivation for BSD.
Perhaps Unix took code from BSD, but also remember that their goal was to have a free (non AT&T) Unix, so they were actually fighting for freedom many years before Linux, GNU, FSF, etc.

Yes, BSD motivation was "do anything about our code what you want".
Its kind of putting fire out with gasoline.
The only one who fights freedom is the one who preserves it by limiting the single right remove freedom. That's RMS and co.
For example, even if technology establishes under BSD license, no one can prevent major publisher from adding patented, closed source extensions to it and thus invalidating the BSD-licensed technology altogether in one move.
A lot of serious flaws unpatched to consider this anything close to freedom, by the reactions of BSD folks upon GPLv3, those are not bugs, but features.

That's just your opinion; who are you to impose the definition of freedom to me?

There is no such thing as "definition of freedom", there is freedom and there is anarchy. Freedom means "no slavery". Anarchy means allow everything.
Anarchy is not freedom - its void. An absence of any policy. This state is never possible, it is similar to null pointer.
Single entity within anarchy immediately postulates totalitarian monarchy(no anarchy). Two+ entities postulate either war (duocratie); or any agreement(which is not anarchy - because they postulate limits).
For anarchy to maintain, there should be zero entities or entities completely not acting in any way, because freedom to commit action of one entity will unavoidably cancel freedom of another entity.
That's not opinion, its not preference, that are facts.

My preference is GPL when it comes to freedom or proprietary when it comes to keeping secrets; everything in-between is not stable enough.
What secrets can you trust, is different matter as trust is a weakness.

[ChrisXY]

Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you,

What about you? Are you ǹot bothered that most of what you say is plain wrong?

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?77561-BSDs-Struggle-With-Open-Source-Graphics-Drivers&p=312060#post312060

[Vim_User]

You don't have to rewrite, because BSD and GPL are both permissive licenses and work very well.

The GPL is not a permissive license, it is a copyleft license, the only form of license some people here on Phoronix (like that systemd troll) are accepting. So I asked to just remove the software with permissive licenses, so that they aren't hypocritical assholes, bitching about a license while using a system that heavily depends on software that is put under a permissive license.

Vim_User is analed
Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you, Analed.

Actually, no, they didn't, and if you would be half as educated about licenses as you pretend you would know that. Still waiting for your answers in the other threads regarding your contributions to the open source movement and how it works out for you not to use permissive licensed software.

[systemd rulez]

Vim_User is analed

Vim_User, looks like your arguments backfired against you, Analed.

Analed deep.

[brosis]

Again, it is in fact very simple: If you don't like permissive licenses then don't use them. You don't need to license your software under such a license and if you don't want to nobody is forcing you to use software that has a permissive license.

You don't have to rewrite, because BSD and GPL are both permissive licenses and work very well.

Just go ahead, remove any permissive licensed software from your system and replace it with GPL software. Possibly you will have to write some of those replacements in the first place, like your X server for example.Arguing against permissive licenses, but posting from a system that makes extensive use of them is at least hypocritical, if not just an asshole move.

I don't remember anything like that happening in GPL space. But in BSD space, yes, they are nazi BSD-only guys, they went ahead are rewrote stuff like .. whole userspace and new compiler. Yes, hypocritical asshole move.

[nightmarex]

You != everyone, you need a larger sample size before you claim something is dubious.

Well I do equal a user correct? Just saying, you know, your statement wasn't 100% factual and is probably baseless. If you had reference to insinuate that the majority Linux users are actually CLI-phobic I will concede your point but until you can I used myself as debasing reference.

@Sergio nice read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...ory-simple.svg may of sufficed however.

[Sergio]

No, YOU are plain wrong. The full BSD came after the first proprietary software was released. BSD license was and is motivated by freedom to make proprietary software. it's proprietary-friendly. Academia now adays also prefer the GPL as it keeps code open and thus more people can benefit.

Here, a history lesson: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensourc...k/kirkmck.html

"Early in 1977, Joy put together the "Berkeley Software Distribution." This first distribution included the Pascal system, and, in an obscure subdirectory of the Pascal source, the editor ex. Over the next year, Joy, acting in the capacity of distribution secretary, sent out about thirty free copies of the system."

As early as 1977 BSD Unix was promoting freedom; GNU/LINUX/GPL weren't even in plans.

"Up through the release of 4.3BSD-Tahoe, all recipients of BSD had to first get an AT&T source license. That was because the BSD systems were never released by Berkeley in a binary-only format; the distributions always contained the complete source to every part of the system. The history of the Unix system and the BSD system in particular had shown the power of making the source available to the users. Instead of passively using the system, they actively worked to fix bugs, improve performance and functionality, and even add completely new features."

According to history, everything you say is just plain wrong.