Why FreeBSD Is Liking LLDB For Debugging

[Cthulhux]

The BSD license fully grants you the right to choose a second license of your choice.

[JX8p]

That's beside the point. The point is, that those corporations only contribute back what they choose to, it's entirely voluntary. Of course they contribute things back, when they don't want to maintain some piece of code themselves. It's nice to get some free labour from gullible geeks.

A fine example of how working together can benefit everyone.

But they will never contribute back ALL of their modifications, and in effect, this means that in pretty much all cases, the proprietary derivative is entirely incompatible with the upstream. Can you run MacOS software on FreeBSD? Or PS4 games? No you can't. That's the problem right there: these corporations can take the free base of BSD, add their secret sauce, and use the resulting product to gain an advantage. The parts that don't matter that much to them, the parts that aren't part of the "secret sauce" get contributed back for free maintainership.

That's beside the point. Let us suppose for a moment that Apple had built OS X atop a Linux kernel. The fact is that their secret sauce would remain at their whim to license as they please; Cocoa, Finder, and so forth run in userland. They wouldn't be covered by the GPL anyway. That being said, if someone were to take FreeBSD and make changes exclusively to the kernel, and did not wish to release it, they wouldn't have to. It's their prerogative.

Compare and contrast with the Linux kernel: there's dozens of corporations, all working together, all releasing their modifications openly, because they can trust that the code also stays open - meaning that none of their competitors can do what the BSD-using corporations do: take their contribution, run with it, add secret sauce and profit. The fact that the code stays open for everyone is like a safety, a guarantee, that everyone - even competing companies - can safely contribute code, without having to fear that they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

Once again, this does not apply to those who seperately build on top of the product. For example, Google, seen by some as a champion of open-source-software (I can't see why, personally), have the ability to close Android's source north of the kernel if they so desire-- thus keeping their secret sauce private. And yet they do not.

No it's not, it's an imaginary problem. Plenty of companies are able to make succesful business with Linux, and the existence of multiple different licenses isn't stopping them.

Some do, some don't. I'm not a professional programmer, but I can't help but feel that trying to abide by all these licences is a pain. I can't say how many companies feel this way, but (particularly with the emergence of the GPL v3) it has become clear that they do exist. Just imagine-- you're designing a product which uses some GPLv3 software in an embedded context. Per the terms of the GPLv3 you have to make the compilation of your own copy of that software feasible, and then make it possible to load it into the embedded device in replacement of what they distribute. This is a pain, particularly if, for example, the embedded device also relies on proprietary software which the company may not redistribute except within said device.

No, the reason of that is because of the rudimentary copyright law (and poor enforcement of it) in China, which pretty much means that the Chinese can take whatever license they come accross and wipe their arses with it.

This is a valid point. However, I still feel that the convenience factor is an element, and it would appear that it is.

[xeekei]

... or non-GPL licensed software.



Linus disagrees quite a lot with most Linux distributors too.

You didn't really counter anything I said here, so I guess we're done. Good.
I read your links by the way, and I can find the same kind of list on the FreeBSD site, and it wasn't short. All free systems have documented security flaws. You can do the web search yourself, it's on the first page.

[XorEaxEax]

The BSD license fully grants you the right to choose a second license of your choice.

Eh what? If you are the code author/owner you can also offer your BSD code under any other licence(s) you choose, but that is true for all licences, including GPL.

In other words I as a developer can offer my code under both GPL and BSD and <insert licence here> if I so choose, however someone else can not come a long and re-licence MY code, be it BSD or GPL or <insert licence here>.

[Cthulhux]

If you derive a third-party software from BSD code, you can choose the "additional" license too.

[Sergio]

Since when has GPL forced anyone to think anything?

Ohh, so you ignore (conveniently) the very origins of the GPL (with Mr. Stallman), the very reason of its existence.
I was FORCED to release my software under the GPL because I used just a little bit of GPL-ed code; I wanted to release it under the BSD license.

If you want to distribute GPL-licensed software, then you have to comply with the license. You can modify it for your own use and keep the changes to yourself all you want. In fact, if you don't distribute the software, then there's practically no difference between BSD and GPL. No one forces you to distribute GPL software, so I've no idea how the hell you think GPL software is somehow taking something away from you.

You seem to be very convenient when debating... and talking about taking things out of context; OF COURSE WE ARE ASSUMING SOFTWARE WILL BE DISTRIBUTED.
I wrote an emulator, used a couple dozen GPL-ed lines, and consequently was FORCED to release under the GPL, although I wanted it to be BSD. So, you were saying?

In other words, the BSD license allows you to take code, for free, and modify it to your own purposes, and then put it under lock and key and not reciprocate - it enables people to selfishly take without giving back, to profit from other peoples' work.

Of course; you are free to do that. No one FORCES you to contribute or lock, because you are FREE to choose what you want. If you are a company it is irrelevant; principle applies to everyone.

That's exactly the point you moron, that's the benefit of GPL. It forces the companies who work on Linux to keep their code open and not close it down and run away with it, like regularly happens with BSD's.

Yeah, so GPL-ed code is free...

Seriously? No one really "owns" Linux. Companies contribute code, but they do not dictate the development of Linux, they do not get to decide what gets accepted and what doesn't. Linus and the kernel devs have total control over what gets accepted in the kernel. Even Red Hat doesn't get their way, even though they contribute a lot of code.

Are you sure companies do not dictate the development of Linux? That the pace at which Linux is developed is not dictated by them? What would Linux be without them?
Get real and stop being so convenient.

Who owns Linux? You can't really ask that kind of question, because there's no answer. There's no CA/CLA in the kernel, so each piece of code is owned by whoever wrote it, and there's currently code from thousands of individuals in the kernel. All of the code is licensed under the GPLv2, which guarantees that it will never get closed down, it will always be free as in freedom.

That is why I used quotations for "own" (convenience?); of course I'm trying to say that Linux DEPENDS on companies, it is what it is because of them. If you take away their support, Linux would be nothing. So, who "OWNS" Linux?

"Free as in freedom"... Damn, if GPL IS freedom... that's just sad...

No, the GPL trades freedom for more freedom in the long run. Basically, the only freedom it removes is the freedom to take away others' freedom.

Take away others' freedom? the original code would still be free, and people would be free to develop with it, choosing to contribute back or not, according to their FREEDOM.
You are just repeating what everybody (Stallman) says without being critical; you are being fanatical.

You suck at analogies... No one is forced to be GPL. No license has that kind of power.

I WAS FORCED TO BE GPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A GPL-licensed software can dictate that all derivative softwares are also licensed under GPL. Meaning, if you modify GPL code, and distribute the modified version, it also has to be GPL. That is something the GPL forces, sure.

I used some GPL code in my project (not even 2% of the code), and still was forced to release THE WHOLE CODE under the GPL. So try again.

GUESS WHAT GENIUS? THE BSD LICENSE DOES THE EXACT SAME THING! If your software is licensed under the BSD license, you can't just take it and license it under whatever. It explicitly requires you to keep the license same. Just like the "evil" GPL! It simply allows corporations to close it in the sense that they don't need to release the source, so it's in effect the same as being proprietary, but the license still remains BSD.

Convenience... I'm not bothering explaining again the 'viral' nature of the GPL, which clearly is the issue that makes it different to any other license.

Getting more market share is good, because it means better hardware support, and with open source software, it means that all the improvements that come with increased adoption end up benefiting everyone. It's only rational to wish for higher adoption and market share.

I don't really care about the "popularity" aspect, personally. I don't mind using an unpopular OS that no one's heard about, but at the same time, there are definite benefits from mainstream adoption and it'd be silly to ignore them.

Yeah, sure it's a good thing...

Well, for an operating system to be succesful, there needs to be some amount of people using it... or do you have some better way of measuring "success"? I'm looking forward to hearing it.

So FreeBSD does not have "some amount of people using it"...good to know. According to your definition of success, FreeBSD CLEARLY is successfull. What a contradiction.

[Sergio]

Eh what? If you are the code author/owner you can also offer your BSD code under any other licence(s) you choose, but that is true for all licences, including GPL.

In other words I as a developer can offer my code under both GPL and BSD and <insert licence here> if I so choose, however someone else can not come a long and re-licence MY code, be it BSD or GPL or <insert licence here>.

No. He means that you, not being the code author/owner, can apply a second (arbitrary) license to the code.

[XorEaxEax]

To you, what is freedom? Is it pointing people with a gun forcing them to think like you (GPL)? Ohh, so much freedom! Hypocrisy...

Oh please, no one is forced to use GPL licenced code anymore than they are forced to use BSD licenced code, meanwhile the 'freedom' part of GPL (and in fact the whole point of the licence) is that of protecting rights for the END USER of software, while BSD protects no rights of the 'end users' of BSD code since it gives maximum rights to the developers instead.

There is no right or wrong here, if you as a developer wants to ensure certain rights for your end users, such as being able to examine, modify, copy and run the code, then GPL is a good choice.

If you as a developer don't care about giving and protecting rights of end users, but instead give vast rights to developers, permissive licencing is a good choice.

My overall problem with BSD fanatics like you is how you will protect the right of proprietary software to not give back and say 'that's just fine, why should they have to?', and then turn around and say GPL is somehow forcing developers at gunpoint.

I just can't understand that type of hypocricy. If you accept proprietary software (which you do), then how can you complain about the right to licence your code under GPL?

Linux depends entirely on companies.

So does FreeBSD, they live entirely off the donations they get from companies and they are being controlled by company interests to such a degree that they were stuck for ages with the insanely old GCC 4.21 for nothing but demands from some of their corporate sponsors.

The difference is that the amount of code brought back to Linux by companies using Linux by far outweighs the amount of code brought back to the BSD's by companies using BSD, not suprising given that the number one reason for choosing something like FreeBSD over Linux is so that said companies can make changes to the core system and keep them proprietary.

There's nothing wrong with that either, as long as the BSD organisations think that is fine then it is fine.

Just as there's nothing wrong with the Linux GPL model where are participants are legally bound to give their enhancements back to the project, and not very surprisingly this method actually yields immensely more code in return, as we can see by the huge Linux code influx versus that of the BSD's.

It is stupid because you are already assuming that everybody agrees on YOUR definition of freedom.

Nonsense, nobody HAS to use GPL licenced code, if you CHOOSE to use someone else's code then you are bound by their CONDITIONS, whatever they are.

But let us continue then with this kind of analogies. The GPL, its viral nature... doesn't it ressemble communism?

No it doesn't, the viral nature only kicks in if you CHOOSE to use GPL licenced code.

If GPL is 'communism' then so it selling proprietary code, in both cases you have to accept conditions for using the code, with GPL you have to give rights to your end users, with proprietary code you typically have to pay money.

In both cases you have the choice of declining.

[JS987]

I used some GPL code in my project (not even 2% of the code), and still was forced to release THE WHOLE CODE under the GPL. So try again.

You don't have to use GPL code in your project. It's your fault if you didn't know that if you use GPL code, other code has to be also released under GPL.

[mrugiero]

Not really. You can even run Android apps in non-Android platforms, there's nothing closed about the clientside API. Granted, currently the softwares that allow running Android software outside Android happen to be proprietary, but that's simply a coincidence - there's really nothing stopping anyone from implementing an independent, open source Android runtime that runs on Linux or whatever platform.

Errr... That's exactly like saying "well, MacOS X is not actually closed, as you can implement a clone" or "there is nothing closed about Windows' client side API...", etc.
Things are either open or closed. Publishing the API doesn't count as a feature towards openness, because it is a basic requisite to write software targeting it.
However, I'm inclined to think the Android runtime is open source (although I could not dig enough information) based on the facts that Dalvik is open source, SurfaceFlinger is open source, and that I'm using CyanogenMod which is completely based on the Android Open Source Project, and I'm able to run Android software on it. I only needed blobs for drivers (and I'm not really sure about that, since my brother loaded the firmware instead of me, and my phone uses software rendering instead of a proper GPU), which again, were never provided by Google and are in user space.

Some do, some don't. I'm not a professional programmer, but I can't help but feel that trying to abide by all these licences is a pain. I can't say how many companies feel this way, but (particularly with the emergence of the GPL v3) it has become clear that they do exist. Just imagine-- you're designing a product which uses some GPLv3 software in an embedded context. Per the terms of the GPLv3 you have to make the compilation of your own copy of that software feasible, and then make it possible to load it into the embedded device in replacement of what they distribute. This is a pain, particularly if, for example, the embedded device also relies on proprietary software which the company may not redistribute except within said device.

Then, you solve it the same way other companies solve it: you don't use that software, and look for an alternative solution instead. Nobody forces nobody to use GPL software. Free software is not there only to reduce your costs as a company, you know? If it serves you well, good for you, but why should the author of the software care if it doesn't because you chose to rely in proprietary models? It was your choice, not his.

Ohh, so you ignore (conveniently) the very origins of the GPL (with Mr. Stallman), the very reason of its existence.
I was FORCED to release my software under the GPL because I used just a little bit of GPL-ed code; I wanted to release it under the BSD license.

I WAS FORCED TO BE GPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I used some GPL code in my project (not even 2% of the code), and still was forced to release THE WHOLE CODE under the GPL. So try again.

Did anybody force you to use GPL code?