Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • brosis
    replied
    ah fuck off

    Originally posted by Ramiliez View Post
    Because systemd is LGPL? and when udev will be integrated into systemd it will pollute every single Linux distribution with LGPL Jihad must continue at all costs
    Oh, pollute Linux distributions with jihad of freedom protection, yes, I see it, uhuh, whatever Sir TRASH.

    Your previous post btw: "1. Vista these days is stable and 2nd best OS" uhuh, just recycle yourself for good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ramiliez
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    I don't see where I 'infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater', as per my thoughts regarding his view on BSD vs GPL, those are not based upon this thread. I've discussed licences with him here on Phoronix before. Again, I'm just confused as why someone who has a strong preference for BSD style licencing would spend his spare-time working on a forked piece of GPL licenced software which is only used with another piece of GPL licenced software. I'm not saying it's 'wrong', just that I find it, odd...
    Because systemd is LGPL? and when udev will be integrated into systemd it will pollute every single Linux distribution with LGPL Jihad must continue at all costs

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I don't think that you can infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater, just because he takes a different side in this particular discussion.
    I don't see where I 'infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater', as per my thoughts regarding his view on BSD vs GPL, those are not based upon this thread. I've discussed licences with him here on Phoronix before. Again, I'm just confused as why someone who has a strong preference for BSD style licencing would spend his spare-time working on a forked piece of GPL licenced software which is only used with another piece of GPL licenced software. I'm not saying it's 'wrong', just that I find it, odd...

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Yes, my question is why someone who advocates BSD is even working on a GPL licenced system component for a GPL licenced kernel (Linux) to begin with. He does this on his spare-time from what I gather, wouldn't he better put those efforts towards BSD-licenced code given that this is what (I am assuming) he prefers?
    I don't think that you can infer that ryao is a rabid GPL hater, just because he takes a different side in this particular discussion.

    I'm taking the GPL-side, but I'm certainly not a BSD-hater. I have released code under permissive licenses in the past, and probably will in the future when it's right to do so. It's just that I prefer the (L)GPL for most purposes.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    The only thing you mentioned that is actually GPL licensed is the Linux kernel. For most practical purposes, a GPL licensed kernel is effectively the same as a GPL licensed kernel. The only differences occur when you want to distribute proprietary code as part of it or reuse code from it somewhere else.
    Excuse me?

    Everything I mentioned is either GPL or LGPL. None of it is under a BSD-style license.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by BeardedGNUFreak View Post
    The only thing keeping the garbage viral GPL from complete irrelevance is Linus's boneheaded mistake years ago of going with it for the Linux kernel.
    Let me know when you have a browser and a toolkit.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    The only disgrace here is this "how dare you not try to force others to give me free stuff" attitude of yours.
    Wow, wow, wow, so you say a self-hating ZFS is actually gathering GPL-hating Linux programmers like you together...? That's something new! You might have stayed BSD, just as in my original response that you perverted - want a "false freedom", stuff like ..."latex women", use BSD license - very reusable, fits any size. No problem with that.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    If it's a fork of GPL code then it needs to stay as GPL.
    Yes, my question is why someone who advocates BSD is even working on a GPL licenced system component for a GPL licenced kernel (Linux) to begin with. He does this on his spare-time from what I gather, wouldn't he better put those efforts towards BSD-licenced code given that this is what (I am assuming) he prefers?

    Leave a comment:


  • archibald
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    A thing that has been confusing me, you are obviously a BSD advocate and from the looks of it you have no love for GPL, why are you developing a udev fork (eudev) which is GPLv2 licenced and specifically for Linux which is also GPLv2 licenced? Wouldn't someone who are strongly advocating BSD work on, well BSD software?
    If it's a fork of GPL code then it needs to stay as GPL.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    The only disgrace here is this "how dare you not try to force others to give me free stuff" attitude of yours.
    Are you insinuating that GPL 'forces people to give free stuff'?

    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    a GPL licensed kernel is effectively the same as a GPL licensed kernel.
    Ehh ?


    A thing that has been confusing me, you are obviously a BSD advocate and from the looks of it you have no love for GPL, why are you developing a udev fork (eudev) which is GPLv2 licenced and specifically for Linux which is also GPLv2 licenced? Wouldn't someone who are strongly advocating BSD work on, well BSD software?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X