Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sony's PlayStation 4 Is Running Modified FreeBSD 9

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
    It's not even like GPL Version 0.1.

    It's more like GPL Version -4.

    BSD is just flawed and it will get you into legal troubles far more then proprietary or GPL (see here: http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20...four-freedoms/)
    No...the BSD License won't get you into more legal troubles... the BSD license boils down to "DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH THIS! I DONT CARE!" The BSD is actually the ultimate free license, because it says just that "Do whatever you want." there are ZERO strings attached.

    The GPL on the other hand places restrictions and handicaps and legal requirements on the software in question. Now, these requirements are for the good of the community and the users but they are infact restrictions on use and create a lot of legal uncertainty in what exactly needs to be done and when and what qualifies as what.

    Also, if Apple or Microsoft take that BSD code and then claim they wrote it, or sue other people for using the same code... they are actually breaking the law. They don't own the Copyright on the code in question, therefore they cannot sue others FOR using that code, also its illegal for them to claim they DO own the copyright. Microsoft and Apple would have to produce the code in question and prove it was being used in other's code, and then it would be simple matter of the ACTUAL copyright holder stepping forward with his code going "No..I wrote that. I released it under the BSD license. I own the copyright." and Microsoft / Apple / etc would then be under attack from the courts for perjury and god only knows what else...
    Last edited by Ericg; 23 June 2013, 08:25 PM.
    All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
      They will respect the GPL and LGPL because it's a legal requirement. But they will not respect the BSD license. BSD is one thing that Sony (like other companies) will not give back.
      No sh*t, that it's a legal requirement - but that doesn't mean XYZ company has always historically respected the GPL.

      BSD license makes no such requirement, so they aren't disrespecting the license, in any way. BSD license is permissive.

      you might want to stop with talking about the BSD license, since you seem to be quite confused / incorrect about it.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
        It's not even like GPL Version 0.1.

        It's more like GPL Version -4.

        BSD is just flawed and it will get you into legal troubles far more then proprietary or GPL (see here: http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20...four-freedoms/)
        interesting read - isn't it curious that what the toe jam eating, irate hippy said is coming to pass? i've read lots of anti-stallman stuff on here but never once have i found him to be incorrect

        I retrieved a hp dv9000 from the trash with a nvidia legacy gpu - aside from the power of the gpu which isn't bad by laptop-out-of-the-bin standards its infuriating that only the closed blob gives it the (buggy) power that it should have. RMS is right only free software actually works.... unless you're a sheep consumer ofcourse who's only interests are call of modern battlefield 5 and failbook

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by ninez View Post
          If anyone is actually interested (not that this applies to the PS4, specifically), but Sony uses lots of GPL/LGPL/GPL2, BSD (and other) licensed code, and use Linux in a slew of products as well...They seem to be respecting licenses
          I'll check the links in a few minutes, just wanted to comment that they better respect the licenses, otherwise they'd be in legal trouble.

          Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
          They will respect the GPL and LGPL because it's a legal requirement. But they will not respect the BSD license. BSD is one thing that Sony (like other companies) will not give back.
          You are wrong. They do respect the BSD license, if they do what the license commands them to do, which is only maintaining the copyright notice, which actually should prevent most trials to actually lead anywhere (companies might still make nonsense suits, but that doesn't mean it's anything correct on their claims), since the copyright of the shared code is still someone else's. This kind of lawsuits are only based in IP, which at the same time is a matter of copyright, and this is still its owner's copyright.

          Also, there are lot of fallacious arguments here http://aboutthebsds.wordpress.com/20...four-freedoms/. The four freedoms, written there, never establishes that you aren't allowed to do otherwise with this source code.
          Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

          Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.

          Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

          Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
          Read this freedoms. Read what they say. They say you have the freedom to do every of those, but it never calls an obligation to do so. That's why the FSF considers it a free software license. It's not the best from a community point of view, because it doesn't enforces you to keep these freedoms going, but it does give you every of those freedoms.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
            Didn't you read the article? BSD license allows you to change the copyright notice as long as you have a copyright notice in it's place. This allows you to that find copies of the code that still have the BSD license that sue the people using it as the code know belongs to you since you change the copyright notice. So therefore:

            If Both Linux and Apple takes the same piece of BSD code and Apple changes the copyright and license which is always does, it has to legal right to look at Linux code and sue Linus for use that same piece of BSD that Apple is using even though the code was originally BSD licensed because Apple changed the copyright and license of their copy.

            This is why the BSD license is the most flawed and moronic license to exist
            Since it says you must include *the above* copyright notice, it implies it can not be *other* copyright notice, but the one written above. So no, you can not just change the copyright notice. His/her analysis is flawed.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
              Didn't you read the article? BSD license allows you to change the copyright notice as long as you have a copyright notice in it's place. This allows you to that find copies of the code that still have the BSD license that sue the people using it as the code know belongs to you since you change the copyright notice. So therefore:

              If Both Linux and Apple takes the same piece of BSD code and Apple changes the copyright and license which is always does, it has to legal right to look at Linux code and sue Linus for use that same piece of BSD that Apple is using even though the code was originally BSD licensed because Apple changed the copyright and license of their copy.

              This is why the BSD license is the most flawed and moronic license to exist
              See the rest of my post, Useless, if Apple did that it'd be illegal.
              All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by UselessFileSystem
                Apple changed the copyright and license of their copy.
                FUD

                http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1083/

                I'm seeing a ton of BSD and many other licenses there.

                Comment


                • #78
                  http://opensource.apple.com/source/L...y-17/libmain.c

                  I see an intact bsd license here.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by D0pamine View Post
                    I retrieved a hp dv9000 from the trash with a nvidia legacy gpu - aside from the power of the gpu which isn't bad by laptop-out-of-the-bin standards its infuriating that only the closed blob gives it the (buggy) power that it should have. RMS is right only free software actually works.... unless you're a sheep consumer ofcourse who's only interests are call of modern battlefield 5 and failbook
                    And what awesome things do you intend to do with that dv9000?

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      I'll check the links in a few minutes, just wanted to comment that they better respect the licenses, otherwise they'd be in legal trouble.
                      I'm not sure it would be apparent anyway ~ to be honest, there would be a tonne of code to go through - ranging from product to product.

                      But from what i did look at, they do seem to provide sources (as is ~ ie: not patches, just the modified code) that they are using. No different, from what most other companies using OSS code would and/or tend provide.

                      in these cases, if you actually want to see the changes that they've made to XYZ peice of software, you would likely need to grab vanilla-sources of the same version and make a diff < which isn't always fun, depending on size of code-base vs. amount of changes > ...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X