Slashdot Mirror

I see what you are asking. Okay... think like this:

1) You are writing an application that will run on unix. This means make; ./configure; make install. This means writing code that doesn't assume a specific compiler (people targeting linux are notorious for assuming gcc exists). This means you are distributing a source code tarball that looks and works just like all the other source code tarballs you are used to working with.
2) You happen to be offering it to FreeBSD users with a port. Ports are nothing but scripts that know how to interact with your make file. They are makefiles that script how to interact with a package's makefiles. The port makefile says "here is where to download the source code, here is how to unpack it, here is a list of everything that gets installed, here is how to call ./configure, here are the arguments for ./configure, here are some patches, and here is where I want you to install it"

Take a look at the ports tree. There are some doozies in there like apache, perl or php so avoid them at first. Look at how some silly app is installed via a port and copy it for now. If you are writing a language library (like a CPAN module) make sure to see how others install CPAN modules, same with PEAR modules.

Make sure to read the porters handbook too! On FreeBSD, there is actually good documentation to work with so enjoy your new OS :-)

Remember, you aren't writing a program for freebsd. You are writing a program for unix, and you are writing a wrapper to install it on freebsd.

Good luck!

Kip Macy's working on it.

Well, not really. True, a lot of the developers have left the three major projects (FreeBSD lost 93% of its core developers), but I wouldn't say it's dying. If a package or new driver is developed in one BSD, it usually gets ported to the other two. For example, OpenBSD started pf and NetBSD helped FreeBSD with its alpha port. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Oh, and to show you what I mean: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7833143728685685343&q=BSd+is+dying&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
http://www.freebsd.org/advocacy/myths.html

I wonder if this is related to the following post on the FreeBSD jobs list.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=0+4570+/usr/local/www/db/text/2007/freebsd-jobs/20071209.freebsd-jobs

Ah, so I go and look at the licenses for FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD, which all seem to come with strings attached, no matter how loose. Note that each of these licenses are based on the premise that copyright law is valid and enforceable.

Well, with the imminent release of FreeBSD 7, BSD is so much faster than linux now

RAID doesn't open you up to data loss from accidental deletion, it just doesn't help prevent it. ZFS, however, does. You can check it out on FreeBSD (which has much better SATA controller support than OpenSolaris).

Although FreeBSD 7.0 (the version with ZFS) is still in Beta, it's been in a feature-freeze for a long time, and it's generally rock-solid. Just read the ZFS guides from OpenSolaris and the tuning guide for FreeBSD:

http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide

Note that ZFS really wants to be run on a 64-bit OS, and it wants a lot of RAM. If you've got that, though, it's fantastic, and it allows for easy snapshots (which helps protect against accidental deletion.)

... so take this with a heaping dose of salt. He thinks that it goes against the Japanese culture to use a technology without paying for it, that it shows disrespect to not pay for software licenses. He is not even allowed to consider using Linux or any other OSS for that matter.

FreeBSD has had support for "snapshots" in the base install for some time now. I believe it was modeled on a feature in NetApps. Other file systems may support a similar feature. Basically, you tell the system to take a snapshot - say every hour via cron - and it starts a new log of changes that have taken place on the file system. Multiple snapshots may be maintained concurrently. With a little snapshot magic you can mount, and even automount these just like NetApp and Leopard. It works great. Note that it saves the snapshot on the same filesystem, so it does not get you out of making proper backups.

The beauty of the OSX's time machine is that it works right, by default, without any setup (If you have an external drive for the purpose). The upshot is that in 5 years, maybe 50% of mac desktops will have SOME kind of regular backup. That will be a pretty huge jump from about 0% now.

some of the responses you've made to my points have conveniently avoided some of the pitfalls compared to windows. Eg, on windows, sure there's different sound standards. In practice, it all "just works". Linux? Oh, if you have sound daemon X running it fucks up the sound for apps that run using API Y...

You said earlier:

Which sound library, OSS or ALSA?

On modern Linux systems, OSS and ALSA are both provided by ALSA, hence there is no issue. Sure, I suppose if you're running sound daemons that are being deprecated (ARTs in KDE, esound etc.) there is going to be issues since they aren't even being used anymore. I haven't had issues using ALSA, OSS, gstreamer simualtaniously on Kubuntu mind you (no configurations or anything)

As I said, it is stabilising, but if you'd been around long enough to remember the a.out and c library changes, you'd know what i'm talking about when I'm referring to compatibility issues. Back in the days of redhat 5.0 for example, the switch to glibc caused huge numbers of apps to break both in terms of binary compatibility and *source* compatibility.

Why should I care about what was a issue in the past? This isn't a issue anymore.

Yes, there's various packages that may or may not be present on a windows box, however, any app can rely on win32 to be present, along with directX 7 or later.

Linux Standard Base works well in my experience.

As vista is pushed out, at least some version of .net is present as well. However, the package specifics aren't relevant - what is relevant is that there's a usable base desktop OS present on any windows box, with a known set of components.

LSB has been a solution for this for quite a long time.

I mean for a start, if i'm building a desktop app right now for Linux, I pretty much have a choice of either KDE or gnome, and whichever I choose probably half (or more) of the linux systems out there will not have the required components installed (some with have KDE some will have gnome, some will have neither).

So just stick the requirements on a webpage, it's not hard to just say "requires KDElibs", it's not like I haven't got "Requires Java", "Requires flash 9", "Requires .net 2.0" and requiring me to install those to get the application in question running.

It's something as simple as a fucking toolkit - and there's no "known quantity" that every linux system will have.

The "fucking" LSB requires GTK+ and Qt among other toolkits. It requires OpenGL and many other things that are generally used. Since the majority of major distributions even comply (except for Gentoo for obvious reasons) with the LSB to make things work across cross distributions.

Server space is another matter, i've been running Linux boxes in the enterprise since 1996

Admittedly I haven't been using Linux since 1996, but in my current daily life. I use every day OS X (I loathe it), Windows (2k3, xp, vista), OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Kubuntu Linux, SuSE Linux... I have a very good idea what is going on with the OSes I use daily.

If you look at the FreeBSD ports (which is where most of your "applications" come from, you'll probably find that they're as up to date or more than any linux distribution.

Okay, I'm just going to take a application that's open on my desktop and check the versions.

I have Dolphin 0.9.2 on Kubuntu Gutsy.

On FreeBSD, the latest is 0.8.2 (Information taken from the KDE ports page).

as a random example: you don't get 3 different boot loaders with their own terminology and documentation.

Most Linux distributions aren't going to ask you "Do you want GRUB or LiLO?" unless you check the advanced install feature. They're just g

Most Linux fanboys are a buch of hypocrites. They would diss Linspire, but then go right ahead and install proprietary Flash and RealPlayer, and use a Windows codecs when available.

Lispire is the thing to give your papa, or granny. Power-users, shut up. Most of you aren't compiling stuff with MLTon anyway. So shut up. Even most of you don't need Debian or FreeBSD. It's just that fixing stuff that's breaking in Leenox distros feels like you're doing Real Work (TM). (Gee, look, I got Debian to install my package without removing the kernel!)

Just put "Linux" in people's mouth. Me, I'm happy they pronounce any word ending in *nix. Later we explain - "actually, that was just a Unix-like OS. Here, take PC-BSD. Give it a try."

LaTeX is the one I would choose ...

There was a thread recently on the FreeBSD mailing list concerning Open Office. The discussion, as expected, devolved from "It's too big and bloated" to "Nothing else will work for me but program X". The reason most cited for "not working" was "it's too hard" to learn, which invited this amusing observation.

Personally, I find Office packages fairly horrible to use or to maintain, and wordprocessors in general are inadequate by nearly every measure. It's a shame they've become such a fact of life, but here we are.

First of all, the comparison would be between BSD and SysV, not BSD and Solaris. Second, ZFS has nothing to do with either SysV or BSD. Third, Mac OS X is not the first BSD-based OS to include ZFS -- FreeBSD has already done so.

You don't understand numbers too well, do ya? From the FreeBSD page on IPv6:

"128 bit address space. In other words theoretically there are 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 addresses available. This means there are approximately 6.67 * 10^27 IPv6 addresses per square meter on our planet."

Yeah... not so much on the running out any time soon. Hell, you could have an IPv6 address per SERVICE, and not run out in the near future.

http://www.freebsd.org/

You posted a number of very half truths.

"With support being dropped all the time (see above posts)."

I can read. pcc does NOT support multiple cross platform grammars.

Its a fact.

Gcc does. I suspect other languages will be dropped as well if maintainers do not step up to the plate or there is no demand.

"You seem to be looking at a very different compiler (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070915195203&pid=52)."

I have read the link, and everyone is entitled to their opinions.

The fact remains, gcc is the most widely worked on compiler system, and continues to be worked on and improved because it IS easy to understand and capabilities like multiple back and front ends for code generation make it unique.

Dissent is what drives improvements in all software, particularly GPL software because of the very fact contributors must share their improvements or shut up.

"Tell me what "finished" compiler does _not_ have this. But, there are those that would rather have correct code than the optimized (but regularly incorrect) code that GCC produces (see above link)."

That statement is stupid. GCC like all USEFUL pieces of software are NEVER finished because people continue to work on either improving it or correcting bugs.

Talk about a "Strawman"!

"And what does this have to do with whether the compiler is good? i.e. McDonald's has sold billions of hamburgers. Does that make those hamburgers not horrible for you (see Super Size Me)?"

Wow, now we are comparing software to hamburgers?

It isn't even a good analogy. Let me point out what you missed.

1) The more code a compiler builds, the more paths are tested in its code generation LOGIC.
2) The more paths that are tested in its code generation logic, the more improvements and bug fixes can be applied to make it better.

A hamburger, I am sorry is not as complex to build has a compiler. Although it sounds like your an expert on building burgers and I am not surprised.

"This is total bullshit. Any corporation that might USE such code would have to do so under the BSD license and them using such code IS ALLOWED BY THE LICENSE. Just because it doesn't fit your ideology does NOT make it theft. Get your head out of your ass."

I am not disputing the corporations right to the license as applied as you say. What I am pointing out is that this type of license I feel encourages corporations to profit from others hard work, and not in a positive way.

The reason why GPL software kicks BSD's butt most of the time is because the BSD license has less incentives for people to profit from their labors. It also gives tools to corporations to build software systems to lock out markets.

My case and point would be this link.

We do NOT need to give Microsoft ANY assistance in destroying free software, either BSD or GPL. BSD has an excellent TCP/IP stack, and Microsoft just HELPED themselves to it.

(et. al. http://www.hu.freebsd.org/hu/arch/2001/Jun/2413.html)

"A counter example of this is WINE. In fact, many parts of WINE actually run faster than there Windows counter parts. Use google to figure out where and by how much."

Err....well. I have used WINE and well it does a poor job of running most Windows programs. Lots of gotchas. I do not think that WINE will be taking over Windows job anytime soon for running anything significant.

Sort of like pcc and gcc. pcc makes a VERY poor gcc.

"They are talking about gcc as a C compiler and that's pretty much it. Because that's the purpose that it's being used for. This is clear from what is even written in the summary i.e. put away your straw-man, we aren't going to buy it."

No, ah, they are not talking about pcc as a C compiler.

Can you READ?

The thread Title is: "Work being done on it too take over GCC's Job?"

Now, I do not wish to be pedantic but, i

Just because you compile with GCC doesn't make your system a GNU system. Otherwise, the Game Boy Advance system would be the GNU/GBA, as Nintendo provided a port of GCC as part of the GBA SDK. (Homebrew developers use a different port of GCC.)

If I had to make a guess as to what deserves a GNU/ prefix, it would have something to do with the userland, which executes even when nothing is being compiled. As far as I can tell, only Linux uses glibc and GNU Coreutils out of the box. FreeBSD has BSD libc and BSD Coreutils.

Just because you compile with GCC doesn't make your system a GNU system. Otherwise, the Game Boy Advance system would be the GNU/GBA, as Nintendo provided a port of GCC as part of the GBA SDK. (Homebrew developers use a different port of GCC.)

If I had to make a guess as to what deserves a GNU/ prefix, it would have something to do with the userland, which executes even when nothing is being compiled. As far as I can tell, only Linux uses glibc and GNU Coreutils out of the box. FreeBSD has BSD libc and BSD Coreutils.

Really? I don't have a BSD system handy, but I thought their cc was just a link to gcc. Hmm... I don't see a separate cc on the FreeBSD doc site but that doesn't necessarily prove anything.

HP-UX ships three compilers - the K&R compiler that they need to compile their crusty old kernel code, the GNU gcc (so they can build stuff like perl or gawk easily) and their expensive flagship HP C Compiler.

I was under the impression that all the free OSes were dependent on gcc... but I'd love to be wrong! :)

It's not [directly] the GPL that's causing me to eventually give FreeBSD a go instead of Debian on my servers - it's FreeBSD's [in-progress] support for ZFS. There might be an awful lot of hype about it, but ZFS seems like a really nice thing for a homebrew SAN.

Of course, licensing issues are the reason why ZFS won't be in the Linux kernel anytime soon.

ZFS on FUSE - and, indeed, FUSE in general - is neat, but not something I'd want to rely upon in a server environment.

well.. doesn't do everything, but hey, it's a start:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=mount_smbfs&sektion=8

In fact, I am an experienced IT professional, and I have only a vague idea what you are talking about. The fact is, I do not spend my time studying the innards of Linux: I have other kinds of issues that I worry about.

LOL. You don't need to spend your time studying the innards of Linux any more than you would with any operating system. Just buy supported hardware. That's what "IT professionals" do, as does any reasonably informed consumer.

Granted, most hardware is designed for Windows, but then again, most hardware is crap, something of which you may be blissfully ignorant. It's not hard to see the correlation why such hardware has, under Linux and other operating systems, a level of support that ranges from barely with a lot of grief, to not at all, to not ever.

And if you think this is all too much trouble, then have a glance at, for example, HARDWARE.TXT. You don't need to be a kernel programmer to be able to jot down a few model numbers before you make that purchase. And if you take a minute to review your scribbled notes, you can come up with some general rules of your own without having to memorise things: buy Intel NICs, use Atheros-based chipsets for wireless, insist on 3Ware RAID cards, and so on. Such rules will address 99% of all hardware concerns and things will "just work." The irony, of course, is that while such hardware enjoys full support, you may still be faced with installing drivers under Windows.

The important issue here is extending the level of support for certain hardware outside of the Windows ecosystem, not the consequences of making ill-informed purchasing decisions or addressing the wildly inaccurate assumptions a typical consumer can make. Hell, if people spent a fraction of time they spent reading the label on a box breakfast cereal on deciding on a piece of computer equipment, then we wouldn't be having these distracting discussions.

Yes, I think it did first appear in 5.x according to the CVSweb entry for its Makefile. I vaguely unforget an old Proliant running 4.7-R that didn't have /rescue and needed lot of mounting of filesystems and messing about to add the missing " to rc.conf that stopped the whole system going multi-user. Getting it to recognise all the memory on that not-quite-a-BIOS equipped box was fun, too (MAXMEM=xxx and recompiling a kernel on a system that could only "see" 16MB of memory, if you can call that "fun"). Amusing times. Thank goodness for all the little improvements we never see until we do something daft.

I just started using ZFS in FreeBSD-CURRENT recently and have been quite impressed with it... Wonder how this will affect their inclusion of ZFS. (In case you want to try it, keep in mind that both the FreeBSD snapshot and ZFS on FreeBSD are experimental technologies, don't use them on production systems.)

I have a x700 and I _know_ it is going to be my last ATI card in much time (i.e. forever or when the issues get fixed, whatever happens first). I know, I know, FreeBSD may not be a mainstream OS, nor a first choice for a desktop computer but at least Nvidia shows some interest for their customer. (psssst, ATI execs, a clue: your customer are the ones who make you earn money to buy those fancy cars you own...)

Its about getting a sizable dictionary of words

Dude, you need to step outside of the world of proprietary Windows and Java development. Near-complete word lists have been available on *BSD systems for decades!

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/share/di ct/

The web2 and web2a files contain many, many words. The freebsd file contains a number of technical terms and acronyms. The propernames file contains a list of proper names.

Unless, of course, you unlink its executable file, in which case it allocates swap to hold the file first.

Why doesn't it just take into account the fact that the file is in execution in its reference count and leave the file where it is on the file system until it terminates? "unlink" only decrements the reference count, it does not free the file. Seems much simpler to me.

In addition, if it does as you say, FreeBSD does not just need to allocate the swap to hold the file, it actually needs to take every page from the executable file that has not yet been loaded in memory and actually copy it to the swap. Where's the coolness in that?

By the way, I didn't find the paragraph which lead you to that that's how it does in there.

FreeBSD likes lots of extra swap space. An idle system will notice that some process hasn't run in a month and will push it to swap, proactively freeing RAM for something else that might want it. Note that it will only page out a process's data segment; it's code segment uses the filesystem itself for paging (why copy "firefox" into swap when there's already a perfectly readable copy on the filesystem?).

Unless, of course, you unlink its executable file, in which case it allocates swap to hold the file first. Which also illustrates that while unnecessary computational complexity is bad, willingness to do complex things when the situation demands can lead to some pretty cool stuff.

List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Linux Driver Violates BSD License
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" [...]
BTW, since this is misc@openbsd.org, people might be interested to
know about the history of the licensing terms of ath(4) in OpenBSD.

OpenBSD's ath(4) consists of two parts:
1. a driver, copyrighted by Sam Leffler of FreeBSD
2. a HAL, copyrighted by Reyk Floeter of OpenBSD

What Theo explained above concerns the OpenHAL code. OpenHAL is the
Linux name for madwifi driver connected with reyk's entirely free and
open source ath(4) HAL code.

Sam originally put a dual BSD/GPL licence onto his driver code.
Reyk always put a BSD-style licence onto his HAL code.

At the time OpenHAL was forked from OpenBSD, OpenBSD's ath(4)
_driver_, but _not the HAL_, was dual licensed.

As already mentioned, OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL, written by Reyk, was
_never_ dual licensed. See the history on /sys/dev/ic/{ar52{10,11,12}{.c,{reg,var}.h},ar5xxx .{c,h}}.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ ic/#ar5210.c

Few months ago, Sam changed the licence of _his_ code to a 2-clause
BSD licence. Sam had every right to do so, because he was and is the
only copyright holder of that code, as the licence header of the
driver file indicates, in FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/ ath/if_ath.c#rev1.170
http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=freebsd &committer=sam

Reyk committed Sam's changes to OpenBSD the same day, so now,
OpenBSD's ath(4) is _entirely_ BSD-licensed, with no alternative
licensing available.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ ic/ath.c#rev1.64
http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=openbsd &committer=reyk

However, what Jiri Slaby does in his diff is simply outrageous. He
changes the licensing terms of the code _he does not own_ _at his own
will_. A clear copyright violation.

As I can see from that diff on LKML, Jiri Slaby doesn't even have his
name as the copyright holder in many of the ath5k files that he tries
to change the licensing terms of. In other files, he is not the only
author, so he can't change the terms unless _all_ other copyright
holders agree to the new terms.
I'm very upset that certain people think they can get away with such a
blatant disrespect of the copyright law. I trust that this violation
won't be left unnoticed.

What I personally don't understand, however, is that if Jiri Slaby
thinks that he can simply change the licence of someone's code without
explicit agreement of that someone, then why on earth does he think
that changing the licence to a more restrictive one will offer him any
protections, as, presumably following his logic, other people could
later change the licence to whatever they feel like, in the very same
illegal manner as he did in the first place. IMHO, that is the real
question that he has to answer.

Constantine.

BSD users believe in no graven images

What about the FreeBSD daemon (as shown on their site? Or the strange thing looking like a furball riding a seahorse on the OpenBSD site? :)

Then check the copyright notice on top of the source files, there is a copyright to ... Jiri Slaby.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi
http://openbsd.org/faq/index.html
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/h andbook/

Since when did Windows come with good documentation, stable code or interface standards? If you want documentation and stable code then http://freebsd.org/ should be the operating system for you. Best handbook, stable operating system. The bullshit about interface standards(I assume GUI), really is a mess no matter what platform.

Virtual machine is perhaps too extreme, but how about http://docs.freebsd.org/44doc/papers/jail/jail.htm l?

I remember when it was called a jail.

Then they would lose the ability to be cross-platform. Linux system calls don't work on FreeBSD

Actually, they do. And IIRC, that's the only way you can run WINE on it.

Nope, I mean the two clause BSD licence. Of course it is basically the same as the MIT licence, but is different from three clause BSD and of course the four clause BSD. The Free BSD licence is two clause as well.

Of course, if an OS has a decent driver system, then having a GPL driver shouldn't limit anyone from using it. As well (an I am not an expert in the field at all...), if people can write proprietary drivers using DRI, why can't people use GPLed DRI drivers on software such as FreeBSD? Or do you just mean that people won't distribute it?

And of course, it wasn't me saying "GPL or nothing".

This would exclude OpenBSD; you need a mandatory policy framework like SE Linux to make it happen. Mandatory encryption means that normal users are prohibited from removing data from the machine without first encrypting it in an approved way.

If you want to stick with a BSD-based system, FreeBSD has Mandatory Access Control support; there are projects to port the MAC framework to NetBSD and OSX.

"To wit, you can't use GPLed software in non-free software, and to make sure you don't, the license requires you to release any software you combine with GPLed software under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license."

For those who remember when the "Google" clause was being proposed. You can gain the benefit of GPL code without combining with GPL code. Just ask Nvidia.

"In practice, people who don't want to do that have generally been given the option of ripping out all the GPLed software from their product(s) and duplicating the functionality on their own."

Or simply buying up the creator of the code.

"I have no problem with this. The GPL isn't trying to hide anything or get Free software in through the back door. It tells you up front what your rights and obligations are, and like other FOSS licenses, is orders of magnitude more clear about that than proprietary licenses."

Licenses are as clear as your understanding of legal concepts and terms. The GPL is no exception to that rule.

"Well, with the additional stricture that if you write it yourself or have someone do it, the proprietary vendor might look for some software patent violation they could use as grounds to sue you."

Like Microsoft?

"BSD and similar believe you can even make it non-free."

Someone stop me before I download non-free code!

"Proprietary licenses believe you can only do what they specifically authorize you to do, and what they authorize really isn't a whole lot."

It's more than what most "religions" give.

That's a good summary, thanks.

Of course, this sort of attack has been known for a while, and it's not just OS X which is mostly immune to attempts by a process to yield the CPU just before a tick to avoid having the usage assigned to the process-- if you check the source code in FreeBSD, for example, in:

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/kern /kern_clock.c

      ----added to keep the comment from wrapping onto the URL----
/*
  * Clock handling routines.
  *
  * This code is written to operate with two timers that run independently of
  * each other.
  *
  * The main timer, running hz times per second, is used to trigger interval
  * timers, timeouts and rescheduling as needed.
  *
  * The second timer handles kernel and user profiling,
  * and does resource use estimation. If the second timer is programmable,
  * it is randomized to avoid aliasing between the two clocks. For example,
  * the randomization prevents an adversary from always giving up the cpu
  * just before its quantum expires. Otherwise, it would never accumulate
  * cpu ticks. The mean frequency of the second timer is stathz.
[ ... ]

Might make it the ideal OS for my needs (I now have Linux on the desktop and FreeBSD on the servers).

You may want to wait for FreeBSD 7 before making the switch. It also has some pretty nice schedulers coming: SCHED_SMP and SCHED_ULE

"If my goal is to maximize the freedom of the users of my software then, paradoxically, I must restrict them - specifically, from taking freedom away from others."

Heh, heh. Yeah! Just like the RIAA/MPAA can "take away" your freedom to do whatever you want with "bits"

According to freebsd-bugs, this one was fixed about a year ago. So either you're spreading FUD, which sounds possible from your obvious linux leanings, or you didn't describe the issue well enough(as another responder asked about that as well).

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/20 06-July/019278.html

http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/

not be possible ... unless they had the right to modify and redistribute the software

If a developer is concerned about their rights to modify and redistribute, then shouldn't they license it under a specific license with a defined meaning and recognised meaning such as GPL or BSD?

I do recognise that you're a big cheese in the linux world, but your post sounds a lot like when people get upset about commercial software getting written on linux, or BSD code being used in commercial operating systems. You choose your license, you live with the consequences. Some of us license our software with the intention of it being abused, 'stolen', changed, redistributed for profit, etc.

Years ago, I wrote down what was necessary for software to be Open Source

Well, so what if you did? That means nothing. Something that has a clear, non ambiguous name such as "The GNU General Public License" or "The FreeBSD Copyright" has meaning. I can write software, and explicitly say that it is licensed under one of these. Saying "Hi, my name's Bruce Perens and this is my opinion on what the term 'Open Source' means" does not carry any authority at all.