Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[dee.]

Oh, I thought we were talking about actually used platforms here. But if it's just about number bragging: NetBSD has 57.

We were talking about archs, if you count the architectures NetBSD supports:

Alpha, ARM (32 Bit only), PA-RISC, 68k, MIPS, PowerPC, SH3, SPARC, VAX and x86

Assuming the x86 here includes x86-64, that makes 11 archs. That's still 19 less than Linux.

The same low level? Oh my.

Again: What, precisely, is missing? Which specific, common hardware doesn't work with a recent BSD of your choice?

Less hardware works on FreeBSD than Linux.

So how's the BSD license worse than any other license here? (Pretending the WTFPL doesn't exist, of course.)

I think you're confused. YOU are the one who started claiming "GPL is bad because it enforces things". All licenses depend on enforcement, BSD is no exception.

How many corporations are currently working on the Linux kernel?

I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

[dee.]

OK: Microsoft is known to have used BSD code for its early networking stuff, still only released it under the EULA "license". Better example?

There's two possibilities - either they include the BSD license document with the OS (and they apparently do with some software where they use BSD code, I'm not going to bother looking up whether they do in this particular case) or, they are actually violating the license (which they've been caught doing in the past, including with GPL software), but nothing has come of it because no one has bothered to enforce the license.

That's another thing (among many) that you don't understand: licenses aren't automatic, they require the author of the licensed work to enforce the license explicitly, by taking legal action against whoever violates the license. No one is going to automatically do it for you.

Any quotes on that?

Read the GPL license.

Precisely.

I'm glad we agree about your dire need for proper education. Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.

[Sergio]

And again, freedom is a highly subjective and abstract concept. GPL is free, according to some people's concept of freedom. BSD is free, according to some other people's concept of freedom. For the ones GPL is free, BSD would be as disappointing as GPL was for you.

Agreed... +1.

[Cthulhux]

Assuming the x86 here includes x86-64, that makes 11 archs. That's still 19 less than Linux.

With how many platforms?

Less hardware works on FreeBSD than Linux.

I like how you fail to bring examples when asked. Got you there, huh?

I'm glad we agree about your dire need for proper education. Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.

You might want to consider my posting again. Chances are good you are mistaken. Time to admit your problem then.

[dee.]

With how many platforms?



I like how you fail to bring examples when asked. Got you there, huh?



You might want to consider my posting again. Chances are good you are mistaken. Time to admit your problem then.

Ok, I seriously didn't think someone could be a shittier troll than bo$$...

[Sergio]

So if someone licences THEIR code under GPL conditions and YOU want to USE THEIR CODE under YOUR OWN conditions, your 'freedom has been vulnered'? Are you insane?

HELLOOOO... aren't you listening (reading)? My project uses a very tiny portion of GPL code, yet THE ENTIRE project MUST BE GPL; I would have wished to release MY CODE under BSD (or whatever license I want, maybe GPL), but I am not FREE to do so. Of course I feel my freedom is being vulnered.

It is THEIR CODE, you have no right to it other than the right they grant you, just as I don't have any right to YOUR car. If I want to use YOUR car I must abide by whatever CONDITIONS you set for using YOUR car, or I can simply choose not to accept them and leave your car be. This does not mean that my 'freedom was vulnered', because my freedom does not extend beyond you right over YOUR car.

Yes; their code is GPL and that is not going to change. Why does my code need to be GPL as well?

Again the freedom which GPL exists to protect is that of END USERS, now that does not exclude developers as they in the form of end users are entitled to changes made to their GPL licenced code in the form of source code, which is often a big draw for developers to choose GPL.

Interesting... I think that the majority of end users don't care for this ' freedom'. I'm pretty sure they are not even AWARE of this.

But the actual reason for GPL is to give recipients the right to the source code, to examine it, modify it, copy it and run the modified code, this is the 'freedom' which GPL ensures.

Yes; the GPL code is there for that purpose, same as the BSD code. The reason GPL exists is not to give 'freedom' to end users; it exists solely for giving the middle finger to corporations.

If you want the 'freedom' to deny end users these rights then you choose another licence, like BSD for example.

A 'freedom' they don't care for/are not even aware of...

[Cthulhux]

Ok, I seriously didn't think someone could be a shittier troll than bo$$...

Still no examples for hardware not working on FreeBSD but on Linux? Not that I had even thought so...

I'll take this for granted, thanks.

(Random hint: Calling someone a "troll" just because you disagree with him doesn't strengthen your position in a discussion.)

[XorEaxEax]

How do you think Apple is allowed to keep Mac OS X closed?

Because the BSD licence allows you to create proprietary containing BSD licenced code binaries without releasing the source code.

Come on, if you are to fanatically champion a licence the way you do, perhaps it would be wise to understand it, just sayin'.

Now if Apple were to release the source code to Mac OS X, then the BSD code they've used would still be under the BSD licence, with the licence text as per the licence conditions, just like when BSD code is distributed with GPL code.

Any modifications/additions done to the BSD code however, could be licenced any way they wish, as the BSD licence only covers the initial implementation and not derivatives like GPL does.

Which part of the quoted license disallows that (like Microsoft's EULA does)? Everything that's not explicitly forbidden is allowed. Simple as that.

What parts of preserving rights don't you understand, BSD preserves no end user rights to the source code, or to modify and run modified code. This is what GPL does, it gives the END USER the right to the source code of any program which uses GPL licenced code, aswell as the right to modify, copy and run the code.

If you want to grant users and developers the same rights, use the BSD license.

If you want to grant the developer the right to deny the end user any rights other than a binary, use the BSD licence.

If you want to grant the end user the rights to the source code, modify, copy and run modifications, use the GPL licence.

According to the GPL you're not even allowed to change one single line of code for your personal purposes without having to share everything with the world. Ridiculous.

You don't have to share 'everything with the world' unless you distribute those changes in binary form to someone else, then they are entitled to the source code of those modifications as per the GPL.

If you don't like to give others the same rights you were given, then write your own damn code or use permissively licenced code, simple as that.

And no, changing one single line of code would most likely not count as a derivative work and thus not fall under breach of copyright as per GPL or any other licence unless that line of code was EXTREMELY LONG, as in unrealistic.

[Cthulhux]

if you are to fanatically champion a licence the way you do

I license all of my software under the WTFPL because I'm not interested in legal nitpicking; unless it's based on GPL libraries, of course. Which is not much.

If you want to grant the developer the right to deny the end user any rights other than a binary, use the BSD licence.

If you want to grant the end user the rights to the source code, modify, copy and run modifications, use the GPL licence.

True but incomplete. Don't forget the freedom to derive and share own work.

[XorEaxEax]

HELLOOOO... aren't you listening (reading)? My project uses a very tiny portion of GPL code, yet THE ENTIRE project MUST BE GPL; I would have wished to release MY CODE under BSD (or whatever license I want, maybe GPL), but I am not FREE to do so. Of course I feel my freedom is being vulnered.

What is it with you BSD fanatics and lack of understanding licences? You don't even seem to understand your own licence.

If you want to release YOUR code under BSD, then NOTHING is stopping you. As the code author and owner you have the right to release your code under any licence you so wish, under several licences simultaneously even.

And since BSD is compatible with GPL, you can distribute your BSD code together with GPL licenced code and YOUR code will be available under BOTH BSD and GPL, while the GPL part (which you didn't write) will remain under GPL only.

Interesting... I think that the majority of end users don't care for this ' freedom'. I'm pretty sure they are not even AWARE of this.

Don't judge others by yourself (and given how clueless you seem to be even in BSD matters you would be doing the world a disservice). That said, one reason the GPL is so popular with developers is because if someone makes changes/additions to their GPL licenced code and distributes those changes, they (original authors) have the right to the source code of those changes/additions which they can then use to enhance their version or simply continue to work from this enhanced version.

This creates a nice tit for tat exchange which also means that if someone forks a project, the original author can merge any worthwhile changes back to the original project, or he can join the fork because it's better. All this is possible since the source code of all derivatives stay OPEN, as per the GPL conditions.

With the BSD licence there are no such guarantees, and proprietary forks of BSD code happens all the time, just look at FreeBSD, we have OSX, iOS, JunOS, etc, and these forks doen't release near all changes back to the original project, certainly nothing which they percieve would be a competitive advantage. This is great for them, but bad for the original project which loses out on many enhancements which stays proprietary, contrast that with Linux under the GPL, where all companies are legally bound to submit any modifications, which has led to them pouring resources into collaboratively developing Linux and instead compete in other areas (typically services).

Yes; the GPL code is there for that purpose, same as the BSD code. The reason GPL exists is not to give 'freedom' to end users; it exists solely for giving the middle finger to corporations.

Bullshit, the Linux project is the largest open source collaborative project in the world and ~90% of the code comes from corporations.

It exists to make sure that END USERS have the right to the source code, modifying, running and copying the code, as it happens, developers are also end users. If it gives the middle finger to anything it is to proprietary projects.