Apple's OS X Launchd Being Ported To FreeBSD

What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.

It seems most Open Source developers love GPL and hate bsd for they projects. It's GPL that encourages reusing the code. It's totaly opposite with bsd: when someone takes bsd code he relicense it under GPL or proprietary license. Bsd is just stupid and irrational and your post is nothing but bullshit. There are many more GPL projects than bsd.

[dee.]

What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.

Your face is completely irrational. Actually, GPL3 is compatible with more licenses than GPL2...

[mrugiero]

No, it doesn't. One could argue that it is a code effect,

I meant "side effect", not "code effect".
Also, on being irrational, hatred is an irrational answer. A rational answer is to think that GPL is not suitable for your project, which is fine, but hating it for that: irrational. So, talking about irrational things...

[Serge]

Wow! What a bunch of convoluted bullshit that is ...

Permissive licenses encourage code re-use by everybody: Proprietary and FOSS alike (Well, duh it's permissive!). If you don't like that, don't use a permissive license for your projects.

If you're a user, this issue doesn't even matter (so why do you care?). Does it somehow upset you that some permissive software you use daily found its way into some proprietary software? I'll tell you that my FreeBSD experience remains unaffected by any code included in Darwin ...

No, permissively-licensed software doesn't bother me. Actually, I came on stronger than I meant to in my post. As mrugiero points out, licenses have been argued ad nauseam. I'm just very sick of those who choose GPL being accused of discouraging code re-use and collaboration.

[mrugiero]

What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.

No, it doesn't. One could argue that it is a code effect, but the intention is clearly that everybody is able to reuse code, the one originally licensed under the GPL and its derivatives. Also, irrational implies there isn't a process of thought, while IMO the trade off was carefully weighted: they chose to make sure there is no patent trolling or locking on GPL software. Being unable to use it in some commercial projects (mostly where DRM is required, or where you put patented code that you do not want any competitor to use) is a side effect, and not "going out of their way to discourage code reuse". In fact, the patents part was long due, as you can't expect a viral license to work if others can make you cease the practical use of the code because of their patents (of course, assuming those others did distribute the code or contributed to it, otherwise they are not affected by the license and you are still liable). DRM clauses might be seen under the same scopes. You an agree or disagree that this is a good choice, but saying it goes out of their way to discourage code reuse is nonsense. It is nonsense the other way around, too.

I'm kind of tired of this kind of arguments about which license is better. Any project chooses its own, and they have their reasons to.

[yogi_berra]

Oh I have one sure fire way of bluescreening Windows 8 / 8.1 with Virtualbox 4.2 series.

Poof!!! DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL (VBoxUSBMon.sys)

Or you could just use a Creative sound card. How are they still in business?

[intellivision]

It allows concurrent boot, so yes, its faster. Its also not much different from BSD init, one got links, other text entries. The only case where BSD init might win is slow file open operations.

Still doesn't explain how BSDinit is faster than sysvinit

[wizard69]

What a steaming heap of crap! GPL goes out of its way to discourage code reuse, that is why many people hate it so much. People could live with GPL2 but GPL3 is completely irrational.

The GPL does not prohibit anyone from re-using code licensed under it. The GPL's "viral" nature attempts to extend the rights of code re-use even further. It is those who reject a project based on it being GPL that are responsible for less code re-use, not those that choose to cover their projects using the GPL

If a project's members choose to license their code under the GPL, those members should not be held responsible for the decisions of others not under their control to reject GPL code. On the other hand, those who reject GPL code do so because they don't want others to re-use their own derivatives of that code, so it is in fact those that reject the GPL and other copyleft licenses, not those that proliferate them, who are discouraging code re-use.

It is true that not every project entity that chooses the GPL for its output does so for the purposes of encouraging code re-use. Some projects make their work available under both GPL and proprietary licenses in order to enable the commercial entities financially backing the project to sell proprietary licenses to the code. Both such asynchronous licensing situations and permissive licensing situations have drawbacks compared to a pure GPL approach: for permissively licensed code, the rights of code re-use are not protected to the same extent that they are with the GPL, while for dual-licensed code, one or several entities is placed in a privileged position relative to that of other stakeholders.

However, since the output of such dually-licensed projects is available under a GPL license at no charge, the only potential adopters of the code who are directly affected by the availability of a proprietary license to the code are those that had already made the decision to reject the GPL. Those that were seeking to use GPL code in the first place can still do so and are not directly negatively impacted by the availability of proprietary licensing options.

[nslay]

The GPL does not prohibit anyone from re-using code licensed under it. The GPL's "viral" nature attempts to extend the rights of code re-use even further. It is those who reject a project based on it being GPL that are responsible for less code re-use, not those that choose to cover their projects using the GPL

If a project's members choose to license their code under the GPL, those members should not be held responsible for the decisions of others not under their control to reject GPL code. On the other hand, those who reject GPL code do so because they don't want others to re-use their own derivatives of that code, so it is in fact those that reject the GPL and other copyleft licenses, not those that proliferate them, who are discouraging code re-use.

It is true that not every project entity that chooses the GPL for its output does so for the purposes of encouraging code re-use. Some projects make their work available under both GPL and proprietary licenses in order to enable the commercial entities financially backing the project to sell proprietary licenses to the code. Both such asynchronous licensing situations and permissive licensing situations have drawbacks compared to a pure GPL approach: for permissively licensed code, the rights of code re-use are not protected to the same extent that they are with the GPL, while for dual-licensed code, one or several entities is placed in a privileged position relative to that of other stakeholders.

However, since the output of such dually-licensed projects is available under a GPL license at no charge, the only potential adopters of the code who are directly affected by the availability of a proprietary license to the code are those that had already made the decision to reject the GPL. Those that were seeking to use GPL code in the first place can still do so and are not directly negatively impacted by the availability of proprietary licensing options.

Wow! What a bunch of convoluted bullshit that is ...

Permissive licenses encourage code re-use by everybody: Proprietary and FOSS alike (Well, duh it's permissive!). If you don't like that, don't use a permissive license for your projects.

If you're a user, this issue doesn't even matter (so why do you care?). Does it somehow upset you that some permissive software you use daily found its way into some proprietary software? I'll tell you that my FreeBSD experience remains unaffected by any code included in Darwin ...

[mrugiero]

Oh I have one sure fire way of bluescreening Windows 8 / 8.1 with Virtualbox 4.2 series.

Poof!!! DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL (VBoxUSBMon.sys)

That is exactly what "hardware related" means. That's a driver trying to overwrite memory that doesn't belong to it, probably freed memory.
The only other meaning of "hardware related" in this context is actually faulty hardware, but it doesn't apply to a virtual driver, of course.