FreeBSD Catching Up To Linux DRM Graphics Drivers, In Sync With Git

[Luke_Wolf]

Too bad you didn't mention their main goal: be corporate slaves who support closed source and proprietary software. If MS or Apple takes their code they're dying from happiness. When BSD takes Solaris code it's good, but when Open Source system like Linux takes their code they're behaving like madmen. Bunch of hypocrites.

Please give me a link to a SINGLE occurrence where Linux took BSD code and the BSD community called them mad men as a result...

Now... that said, I don't think anyone in the permissively licensed camp has any problems with anybody using their software, however they like any other active Open Source or Free Software Project will take umbrage to people creating hostile forks of their project, which does not require a license change but is certainly aggravated by placing a more restrictive or switching to an incompatible license (which may not sound possible at first but consider the situation where the community itself splits like in ffmpeg vs libav).

Closed source forks such as in the case of Oracle Solaris and ZFS, or in the case of Creative buying out and turning OpenAL proprietary, which is to say... the sort of things that gives Stallman nightmares, while definitely negative aren't nearly as bad as one might think, because the community stayed, took the last open source version and carried on where they left off, and thus is actually less bad than an open hostile fork because it's just one player pulling out and deciding they don't want to be open anymore, leaving the rest in play. Now...that said... if there's one company that owns almost the entirety of the development of a project either by necessity, project management, or otherwise and they decide to close it... and so take the community with them, then you're screwed (I seem to recall this happening to some formerly open source arena type game), but that's why Community is important.

[starshipeleven]

Of course not. I don't have exact statistics on this point but much of the Linux Kernel actually isn't GPL, and instead permissively licensed,

Whoa whoa whoa stop, I'm not assuming bad intentions but written like that it's wrong.
The kernel itself is GPLv2.
The drivers are either GPL or (more commonly) some kind of GPL-compatible permissive license.

[starshipeleven]

Please give me a link to a SINGLE occurrence where Linux took BSD code and the BSD community called them mad men as a result...

There were some cases of BSD sympathizers people attacking FOSS (and thus also Linux) with some weird arguments and calling them mad men even without such provocation. I think the argument was that FOSS is contrary to privacy, or somesuch.

Also there were some BSD sympathizers that tried to claim that package availability had anything to do with distro popularity, of course to show that BSD is as popular as Linux.

[Luke_Wolf]

Whoa whoa whoa stop, I'm not assuming bad intentions but written like that it's wrong.
The kernel itself is GPLv2.
The drivers are either GPL or (more commonly) some kind of GPL-compatible permissive license.

Wrong... The Entirety of the Kernel when taken as a single unit is GPLv2, large swaths of the kernel, which includes drivers are under a permissive license when part of the combined work

There were some cases of BSD sympathizers people attacking FOSS (and thus also Linux) with some weird arguments and calling them mad men even without such provocation. I think the argument was that FOSS is contrary to privacy, or somesuch.
Also there were some BSD sympathizers that tried to claim that package availability had anything to do with distro popularity, of course to show that BSD is as popular as Linux.

Are you trying to be disingenuous, or are you really just that absolutely retarded?

First off calling FOSS a bunch of mad men for their philosophy and bullshit is not calling someone a bunch of mad men for using and including BSD licensed code in one of their projects, so stop being disingenuous

Second... FOSS and GNU have everything to do with one another, FOSS and the FSF have everything to do with one another, GIMP has everything to do with FOSS because it's a GNU project.... Linux is not a GNU project despite using a GNU userspace, and the founder Linus Torvalds is in the Open Source camp to the point of calling the FSF a bunch of "crazed bigoted people", go to ~4:20

In fact he goes so far to say that that the only that he cares about is that if you Linux and you make changes that you give source code back, and that the rest of the verbiage doesn't matter at ~8:20 and at around 8:50 encourages people to license their code under BSD, and I highly recommend watching the video in it's entirety, but what does that mean? Linux is an Open Source Project... not a Free Software Project. They just happen to use a strong copyleft license, which is perfectly okay in Open Source.

[Luke_Wolf]

Wrong... The Entirety of the Kernel when taken as a single unit is GPLv2, large swaths of the kernel, which includes drivers are under a permissive license when part of the combined work

Bah...

should be

Wrong... The Entirety of the Kernel when taken as a single unit is GPLv2, large swaths of the kernel, which includes drivers are under a permissive license when they are taken as individual pieces and not part of the combined work

[k1e0x]

Linux SHOULD take some BSD code because some of it's well thought out and well written as opposed to the Linux alternatives (: cough : epoll : cough : madv_dontneed). - As a Unix admin I scoff at every Ubuntu and CentOS server I see out there anymore because FreeBSD just does it better now days. Now with new graphics system coming we might be able to have a decent Unix desktop as well that doesn't have to have the uber init systemd rammed down our throats. - As far as the motive some people just want their software to be used regardless of legal issues. I tend to think weak copyleft is the preferred style as opposed to strong copyleft so more MPL less GPL but.. ya know to each their own.

[starshipeleven]

Wrong... The Entirety of the Kernel when taken as a single unit is GPLv2, large swaths of the kernel, which includes drivers are under a permissive license when part of the combined work

Drivers are not part of the kernel proper, they are part of the "Linux kernel project", the git repos with all code kept together because it's most convenient to do so. The kernel proper has no drivers, as drivers are separate entities from the kernel (being modules and all).

It's the same as the people talking of Systemd that keep mixing up "systemd the umbrella project made of 50+ binaries" with "systemd the init binary itself, only ONE of such 50+ binaries"

First off calling FOSS a bunch of mad men for their philosophy and bullshit is not calling someone a bunch of mad men for using and including BSD licensed code in one of their projects, so stop being disingenuous

Double standards detected. Please note, for most people in the other camp it's madness to use code with a license that allows everyone to just come and use it without contributing back.

Then again, for drivers or other stuff like Mesa or X11 it's not a major issue as they are usually very OS-specific and the effort to port them to non-unix-like OSs is very non-trivial.

But for other smaller software that can be more easily closed-sourced and exploited in commercial products yes it is frowned upon by the other camp.

Second... FOSS and GNU have everything to do with one another, FOSS and the FSF have everything to do with one another, GIMP has everything to do with FOSS because it's a GNU project.... Linux is not a GNU project

No, something is FOSS if it is using a FOSS license.
GNU is just a strong batshit insane advocate of FOSS, but FOSS is just "stuff that follows a set of rules", not "a GNU project".
Linux kernel is using GPLv2 which is a strong copyleft license, this means that kernel itself is FOSS while most of the drivers in source form are just opensource, and they become FOSS (i.e. GPL) only after compilation due to a gimmick required by the GPL of the kernel.

[starshipeleven]

Linux SHOULD take some BSD code because some of it's well thought out and well written as opposed to the Linux alternatives (: cough : epoll : cough : madv_dontneed).

FYI: Both are like that on purpose, they aren't "badly written".

- As a Unix admin I scoff at every Ubuntu and CentOS server I see out there anymore because FreeBSD just does it better now days.

Ah, we needed some Veteran Unix Admins to show up to the party too.

Now with new graphics system coming we might be able to have a decent Unix desktop as well that doesn't have to have the uber init systemd rammed down our throats.

And as all card-carrying members of the Veteran Unix Admins here is the obligatory anti-systemd statement.

[duby229]

Drivers are not part of the kernel proper, they are part of the "Linux kernel project", the git repos with all code kept together because it's most convenient to do so. The kernel proper has no drivers, as drivers are separate entities from the kernel (being modules and all).

It's the same as the people talking of Systemd that keep mixing up "systemd the umbrella project made of 50+ binaries" with "systemd the init binary itself, only ONE of such 50+ binaries"

Double standards detected. Please note, for most people in the other camp it's madness to use code with a license that allows everyone to just come and use it without contributing back.

Then again, for drivers or other stuff like Mesa or X11 it's not a major issue as they are usually very OS-specific and the effort to port them to non-unix-like OSs is very non-trivial.

But for other smaller software that can be more easily closed-sourced and exploited in commercial products yes it is frowned upon by the other camp.

No, something is FOSS if it is using a FOSS license.
GNU is just a strong batshit insane advocate of FOSS, but FOSS is just "stuff that follows a set of rules", not "a GNU project".
Linux kernel is using GPLv2 which is a strong copyleft license, this means that kernel itself is FOSS while most of the drivers in source form are just opensource, and they become FOSS (i.e. GPL) only after compilation due to a gimmick required by the GPL of the kernel.

Just wow! Holy fucking wow!

[starshipeleven]

Just wow! Holy fucking wow!

Good, my posts should always inspire awe and compliance to my diktats.