Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[XorEaxEax]

They can't, for example, close their source code.[/url]

Yes they can close THEIR source code. They can't however close their source code while using it together with OTHER people's GPL licenced code. How hard is this for you to understand? They are using someone ELSE's code, and as such they must abide by the conditions set by the code owner or simply not use the code. Just like anyone else would have to abide by your conditions should they want to use your code.

[Sergio]

BSD is only useful when you don't care about end users and when you don't care about competing with other projects. This makes bsd totally anti freedom and anti progression license.

Wow... so much bull shit...

[dee.]

Ohh, so you NEED to be COMPATIBLE with the GPL... Stop this rhetoric shit; it is clear the implications of using GPL in your project. I would like to license my code WITH WHATEVER F***NG LICENSE I WANT. That is what I said (my code with my ARBITRARY license).

You're entirely free to license your code under whatever shitty license you want. No one is stopping you. You just can't change the license of other people's code, how hard is that to understand?

I am aware of all this. The only thing I have to say against the GPL is when they use the word 'freedom', it is just that; I acknowledge its importance, and value it.

Whole lot of whining because of one word. What do you care what words other people use in licenses that you don't want to use anyway?

Go ask Mr. Stallman why he created GNU and the GPL. He thinks closed-source programs is the devil. And closed source only makes sense in corporations, where you need to protect whatever gives you an advantage over the rest.

Stallman created the GPL, because a corporation took his BSD-licensed software, improved it, and sold it as a closed-source product. When Stallman asked if they would contribute those improvements back to the original, seeing as the corporation was benefiting from his and others' free work in the first place, they refused. So he created a license that enforces reciprocity. Seems sensible to me.

Closed source doesn't make sense, everything can work as open source, it's just a matter of adapting your business models. The advantages you get by hiding the code are dubious at best, and short-termed only - in the long term, it's much more advantageous to have a healthy open-source ecosystem to develop and maintain software. It's not the 90s anymore when you could just release a binary and expect people to use that same binary for 10 years. These days people expect software to be updated and maintained, and that's expensive work.

Traditional closed-source companies are starting to notice the pressure, eventually they'll have to adapt or die, as open source is much more efficient as a development model.

I can't understand all this "end user's rights" thing...

That much is evident.

[Cthulhux]

Anyone still trying to reason with this guy? It's like half of his posts aren't even halfway coherent...

Seriously, stop trolling please. All that whining.

dee. has now been successfully added to your ignore list.

Sergio, please stop feeding him too. He won't understand.

[dee.]

Seriously, stop trolling please. All that whining.

dee. has now been successfully added to your ignore list.

Sergio, please stop feeding him too. He won't understand.

I can tell you're trolling because trolls always accuse other people of being trolls...

[ninez]

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).

1st - MacOSX isn't really a fork of FreeBSD and neither is iOS. but yeah, Darwin (the core of OSX) has a BSD implementation / parts of NetBSD and FreeBSD. but it's important to note, that the BSD chunk of code in Darwin does not make up the majority of the kernel (and any userspace parts that may be in MacOSX, make up probably even less... BSD (kernel part) is basically slapped onto Darwin/Mach as a kernel module... 2nd, Darwin isn't a 'propietary fork' all of the source code is freely available, as is many other BSD licensed code (or otherwise) that they use; http://www.opensource.apple.com/ ...

obviously, I'm not trying to argue for/against any particular license (i think all licenses have validity, and it's really upto the developer to use what serves them best); but citing Apple's use of BSD code for your argument doesn't really work, since it is all open-source code that Apple themselves have made freely available, on every release for many many years...

personally, i think bickering over GPL vs. BSD license is a waste of time, they both serve different needs / purposes... GPL is a great license, so is BSD, so is MIT, etc...

[Sergio]

You're entirely free to license your code under whatever shitty license you want. No one is stopping you. You just can't change the license of other people's code, how hard is that to understand?

Ok, again...
My project, I would've liked to release it all under BSD (or at least the code I did). I needed a few lines GPL-ed; my project NEEDS these lines. So, next comes distribution. Can I distribute my code with one license and the few GPL lines stay GPL? NO; I was forced to distribute the whole project under GPL.
Once again: I DIDN'T WANT MY PART TO BE GPL (GOT IT?) Ok. Then, I was FORCED to GPL my part, because my project depends on a few GPL-ed lines.

Whole lot of whining because of one word. What do you care what words other people use in licenses that you don't want to use anyway?

Yes. Indeed, the controversy is such that lots of people have decided to call them Open Source, and not Free. Of course, Stallman didn't like this because he actually thinks the license provides freedom.

Stallman created the GPL, because a corporation took his BSD-licensed software, improved it, and sold it as a closed-source product. When Stallman asked if they would contribute those improvements back to the original, seeing as the corporation was benefiting from his and others' free work in the first place, they refused. So he created a license that enforces reciprocity. Seems sensible to me.

Yes; as I said, my only complain is when, for example, people say that he is the creator of FREE software. To me that is shit.

Closed source doesn't make sense, everything can work as open source, it's just a matter of adapting your business models. The advantages you get by hiding the code are dubious at best, and short-termed only - in the long term, it's much more advantageous to have a healthy open-source ecosystem to develop and maintain software. It's not the 90s anymore when you could just release a binary and expect people to use that same binary for 10 years. These days people expect software to be updated and maintained, and that's expensive work.

Traditional closed-source companies are starting to notice the pressure, eventually they'll have to adapt or die, as open source is much more efficient as a development model.

I don't think that your principle applies to every domain; how could you model a business like the video game industry with GPL? What about products like Adobe's Photoshop?

That much is evident.

Could you explain me the rationale behind this "end users' rights"? Do you argue that people actually care about/are aware of these rights? That the average person picks its software based on a license?

[dee.]

personally, i think bickering over GPL vs. BSD license is a waste of time, they both serve different needs / purposes... GPL is a great license, so is BSD, so is MIT, etc...

Yes they do, and BSD/MIT are very poorly suited for operating systems. They're fine for some things.

[dee.]

Ok, again...
My project, I would've liked to release it all under BSD (or at least the code I did). I needed a few lines GPL-ed; my project NEEDS these lines. So, next comes distribution. Can I distribute my code with one license and the few GPL lines stay GPL? NO; I was forced to distribute the whole project under GPL.
Once again: I DIDN'T WANT MY PART TO BE GPL (GOT IT?) Ok. Then, I was FORCED to GPL my part, because my project depends on a few GPL-ed lines.

Once again: no one FORCED you to use GPL-licensed code in your project.

It's the same thing with any software, GPL or not: you have to respect the license. If it were proprietary software, and you somehow got access to the source code, you couldn't use those lines of code in your software at all.

If you use GPL code in your project, then you're practically (and legally) making your project a derivative of that GPL-licensed project. Therefore, the code you write must also abide by the GPL.

You may be able to get around this by not linking statically to the GPL code, then you can license your code as BSD and still use the GPL code. If that's not possible for you, then simply don't use the GPL code, and write your own. If it's only a few lines of code, I can't believe it would be a huge problem for you to implement it yourself.

Yes. Indeed, the controversy is such that lots of people have decided to call them Open Source, and not Free. Of course, Stallman didn't like this because he actually thinks the license provides freedom.

It does.

Yes; as I said, my only complain is when, for example, people say that he is the creator of FREE software. To me that is shit.

You're quite hung up on words, aren't you? Free Software is a term coined by Stallman, so he gets to decide what Free Software means, and the meaning has become widely accepted, so Free Software means what the FSF says it means, DEAL WITH IT.

I don't think that your principle applies to every domain; how could you model a business like the video game industry with GPL? What about products like Adobe's Photoshop?

GIMP, Krita and Inkscape exist, and are all open source. In many areas they're perfectly up-to-par (in some, even superior) to Adobe products.

There are open source video games, they can be funded with crowdsourcing or donations or service-based models... or any number of things.

Also, a game company can easily release the game engine open source, and sell the actual game data as proprietary.

Or, with any software, people can just sell binary versions of the open source software, and trust that most people are lazy/untechnical enough to not want to compile the software themselves. Many projects already do this succesfully (Ardour, for one).

Could you explain me the rationale behind this "end users' rights"? Do you argue that people actually care about/are aware of these rights? That the average person picks its software based on a license?

Many people are not aware of / don't care about their civil rights and liberties in the "real world" either, do you argue that these rights are also unimportant?

[mrugiero]

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

Which part of the GPL prohibits this, again?

... which is bad for developers involved in creating derivative software as they lose full control over their own work. Basically, the GPL disfranchises developers.

No. It is bad for developers involved in creating proprietary derivative software. Also, they never lose full control over their own work, they can still work on their own branch. The license doesn't mandate letting anyone else put a hand on your copies of the code. Whatever happens outside will not affect your workflow.

Ohh, so you NEED to be COMPATIBLE with the GPL... Stop this rhetoric shit; it is clear the implications of using GPL in your project. I would like to license my code WITH WHATEVER F***NG LICENSE I WANT. That is what I said (my code with my ARBITRARY license).

You can release your code under your arbitrary license. If you use someone else's code, however, you need to comply with their conditions. There is nothing crazy about that. Even if it is a single line. Try copy pasting a bit of Windows source code and expect them not to sue you...
Try using BSD licensed code and not copying the copyright notice, also.

Go ask Mr. Stallman why he created GNU and the GPL. He thinks closed-source programs is the devil. And closed source only makes sense in corporations, where you need to protect whatever gives you an advantage over the rest.

First, he created the GPL because he considers closed source programs not to be free, and yes, he considers those to be evil. He, in consequence, tries to enforce his code to remain free, under any circumstances, and any derivatives, too. This motivates the GPL. Secondly, closed source might only make sense in corporations, but there are lots of freeware, too, which is closed source and not backed by companies. Third, on the interest on the source code, you should remember at the time the free software movement started, most users were actually informed on this subjects, and having the source code for applications was relatively normal. LATER proprietary software came to become the norm, and Stallman got upset.

Yes; as I said, my only complain is when, for example, people say that he is the creator of FREE software. To me that is shit.

He is the creator of the free software movement, at least as an ethical issue.

I don't think that your principle applies to every domain; how could you model a business like the video game industry with GPL? What about products like Adobe's Photoshop?

The GPL is about the code, not about the contents, and you could require the clients to pay for those, the same way it happens now in some game niches (for example, id releases all of their older engines as GPL). If the game industry would follow the GPL, we'd have games competing on content, instead of graphics (as all of them would have high quality graphics/engines, backed by the companies as a community). That would be great for the game industry, IMO.
Also, being the case, how do you see BSD working for them? They are not using the BSD as anything but a free code machine. Code that they could fund by themselves (and that some help to fund, as Apple does), as they are big companies already, making a proprietary product that no one else can legally distribute.
If they were to write BSD licensed code, they'd lose any advantage, the same as using the GPL.