Slashdot Mirror
xMach GPL Free
Anonymous Coward writes "I just downloaded xmach from xmach.org and it appears that they are now completely gpl free. I emailed one of the developers and he tells me that they have someone working on adding BSD drivers to it, and that he (the guy I emailed) is integrating ufs+ffs+softupdates from freebsd. Sounds like they're going to be producing something usable in the near future. Oh, and the full source tarball is less than 3megabytes. I guess they meant it when they said proactively not bloated."
Correct. BSD code can be used in GPL projects, but the reverse cannot occur. So the BSD code gets wider coverage.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Well, you're right about the pro-GPL slant of slashdot. I really don't have anything against the BSD license, but it really has a different function from the GPL. I use both of them for different projects.
;-)
I agree that the actual text of the GPL is somewhat complex, but the gist of the GPL can be summarized quite succinctly: "You can use this program for anything you want. If you distribute it you must also distribute the source code. If you distribute modified copies of this program, the modified copy must also fall under this license."
The complexities mostly come in in defining in which circumstances GPL'ed software can be used with proprietary software. For people that exclusively write free software, this doesn't become an issue. For the others, well, remember that part of the purpose of the GPL is to motivate people to write free software
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
well understood Gnu license
If the GPL is so well understood, then why did Corel have 2 brushes with GPL violations? How about the Virgin Webplayer? Or AMD's latest hammer emulator?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Basicly I hope they will try to make it compile with LCC
The LCC license is a fucked up pile of crap. The LCC license essentially says "you can't sell or use this this compiler, except under a set of conditions that we can't be bothered to clearly define. If you have any questions, talk to our publisher." I'm not a lawyer, but it's pretty clear they didn't bother to consult a decent one when they wrote up the license, and I'd be very suprised if the license they wrote didn't effectively say, "You are not allowed to use this code, ever, for anything. Go to Hell."
I'll take the restrictive and well understood Gnu license any day of the week.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
No. I don't give a flying fuck what the "purpose" of the GPL is. The point I made was that the LCC license was an unintelligible mish-mash, probably without any legal meaning at all. The LCC "license" is not a license at all.
By contrast, the GPL is a license. Given a choice between no license (the LCC "license"), and a real license (the GPL license), the GPL license is always preferable, since it provides me with at least some rights. The LCC "license" does little more than convince me that the copyright holders feel that learning from the book is fair use, and they won't sue me if I try to use the book to learn from.
I have no idea what you have against the GPL license. If you don't like it, please stop using any software that falls under the license. Perhaps, if you feel strongly enough, you can create your own license, and spend the next 20 years of your life creating software and a community around your license. Or, you can just bitch and moan on slashdot. It's your choice.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
As FreeBSD has showen (working closely with Apple) being BSD allows for co-operation with industry, which can be advantagous, however If a company choses to close the source completely then they can simply be ignored. Conversly if they wish to implement a partially open operating system (as apple have done releasing the code under the terms of thier own licence) then the BSD is flexible enough to allow them to do this, whilst still contributing code back to the community under the terms of the BSD.
Knowledge Speaks, Wisdom Listens -- Jimi Hendrix
Ok, facts (per Micorsoft word) that the GPL is *NOT* easy to understand, compared to other options.
/. moderation system mods up pro-GPL comments and mods down anything critical of the GPL.
The GPL with preamble/postable/all the babble
Counts:
7 pages
words 2946
characters 14538
paragraphs 171
sentences 93
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 0.5
Words per sentence 31.7
characters per word 4.8
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 11.6
The 4.4BSD-Lite with clause #3 removed.
Counts:
1 page
words 254
characters 1422
paragraphs 26
sentences 6
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 0.2
Words per sentence 42.3
characters per word 5.2
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 10.7
And the simplest license:
"I hereby place this software in the public domain" (given how Berkely didn't go after Microsoft and others for the use of BSD code in an improper way, or how no one has sued over GPL violations, it might as well be public domain)
Counts:
1 page
words 9
characters 42
paragraphs 1
sentences 1
Averages:
Sentences per paragraph 1
Words per sentence 9
characters per word 4.6
Readability
Bormuth Grade Level 8.5
The GPL is more complex compared to the BSD license. And, it is that complexity that causes issues for Corel and others.
Readability formulas
After Word completes a grammar check, readability statistics are displayed, including the following readability formula:
Bormuth Grade Level
This index determines a readability grade level based on characters per word and words per sentences.
Oh and once again, the
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!