Posted by
AilleCat
on from the shift-in-paradigm dept.
BSD Todayreports that embedded RTLinux company, FSM Labs has decided to move into NetBSD as a general purpose OS layer to RTLinux APIs. This is following Wind River's acquisition of the software assets of BSDi. Makes one wonder whether the competition in the BSD arena is about to begin.
Re:I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 2
I think you hit the nail directly on the head with this one. Most companies aren't really all that adverse to working with free software, but if they can't make any money off of the product they can't produce it. The GPL intentionally makes it very difficult to make money off of the software. However the BSD license allows a company to "value add" software and sell those enhancements for a profit. This is why you see FreeBSD hidden in things like routers (Juniper Routers for instance) and firewall. While the concept of profit may be abhorant to some of the more rabid GPL zealots, the simple fact is that profit is the basis for a capitalist economy, which is what keeps America running.
Of course there are advantages to the GPL from a community sofware point of view. In fact for personal projects it is probably the superior license, but if you are a for-profit company the GPL is something of a hinderence.
Flames away...:/
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
It's option not concurency
by
Ektanoor
·
· Score: 2
The company is making an option and not turning fields. One can use either Linux or NetBSD. If anyone reads the article then it will clear read this. And I think this is great. A company is giving its customers the option of choosing the OS it may fit their needs. No many companies can do this as such thing demands some supplementary effort for development and maintenance. It's a pitty how/. reacted to it.
It seems people there fought so long against M$ that they are becoming M$ themselves: "If you aren't exactly in our side then you are another enemy..."
Fifteen million Apple boxes a year might be ...
by
crovira
·
· Score: 2
Apple is going to repeat its feat of becoming the largest shipper of RISC boxes with the introduction of the PPC by becoming the largest shipper of Unix systems with the introduction of OS X.
Competition. Nah. Against who?
-- MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own.
If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
true business value for BSD?
by
cpeterso
·
· Score: 2
Not really; WindRiver's market is embedded systems; they deal in embedded realtime systems.
As for competition.. it's rediculous to speak of 'competition' between things that aren't commercial entities. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, these exist because people want them to, not because of some company.
The rumors of death are greatly exaggerated . . .
by
werdna
·
· Score: 2
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share.
Gosh, the Wall Street Journal indicated recently that Apple sales of Darwin-based MacOS X in the last month dwarfed "sales" of "free" unices by a long shot. That was a qualitative report. Does anyone know how many Apple actually sold?
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Hmmm.... Darwin (pun intended), not wishful thinking, seems to control the fates of these systems.
Re:The rumors of death are greatly exaggerated . .
by
werdna
·
· Score: 2
in one week.
Re:I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
by
selectspec
·
· Score: 2
disclaimer: This post is in no way meant to imply my preference of one license over another. That's one holy war I desperately wanna avoid.
Ah, but this is/. buddy, and all I have to say is...
JAHAD!!!
--
Someone you trust is one of us.
And the community stills wins...
by
alexhmit01
·
· Score: 2
If you are making improvements to a community supported project, you will give back the code anyway. Otherwise, you need to maintain your own fork and roll the improvements in. It is far better to get your changes into the final product.
Companies with BSD software are most likely to either: A) start with BSD code and morph it into something very different and proprietary, or B) release a value-add to the BSD code, and release the improvements to the BSD stuff to keep synced.
In case A, they could start from scratch (but it is a waste of effort and therefore inefficient, regardless of your holy war), or B, you get the code. In case B, if it is GPL'd, they are likely not to start the project, and therefore, you don't get more code.
Pre-web days, the GPL solved a problem because there was no concept of open source communities. Stallman's free software position had tremendous benefits, and did result in companies GPLing code to comply. However, in this day and age, the open source community creates enough of an incentive to get code released, without the formality of the GPL.
Example: SAMBA. Apple knows that good NT integration would go a long way towards making OS X a good corporate citizen. SAMBA has a solid implementation. However, as it is GPL'd, they can't build a SAMBA based login, etc., system and release it with the OS. Someone would have to package it up as an add-on, distributed separately. This benefits nobody.
I support free software, I try to release what I can. I provide all my clients with the source code to the systems that they paid me to write. I feel that it is the right thing to do. We even negotiate a transferability license if they want, I'm willing to provide all the freedoms of the GPL (even GPL'd code) for a fee.
However, I feel like the GPL is a mixed blessing. It does create an open-source playground where companies have an incentive to enter the GPL world.
At the same time, however, I feel that it is keeping valuable software from existing (benefitting nobody). Additionally, the concept of keeping the code free is silly. If I release code into the Public Domain or with the BSD license, that code is perpetually free as long as SOMEBODY hosts it somewhere. Improvements may not always be free, but the code is free.
The tradeoff is: is it more valuable to (potentially) get more free software out there by coercing companies, or will I get more value from propreitary add-ons, or even, will I get more free software by allowing proprietary add-ons and getting the patches released.
As a software author, you need to make a decision for your code.
One thing you should definitely do, however, is get people to assign copyright (like the FSF does). That way, if you think that their is an advantage to releasing under a new license, you can do so. Just realize that if you go BSD->GPL, the old code remains under BSD. If you go the otherway you are fine.
So the holywar compromise might be: release under the GPL, maintain copyright (and get updates assigned), then if a compelling case is made, you can proprietarily license it to a company making the add-ons (perhaps distributing or donating some of the fees, something to discuss in the assign copyright place), release under the BSD license, etc.
Both have their place, but you have to decide which will generate more benefit.
I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner.
by
MustardMan
·
· Score: 4
This makes alot of sense to me. Businesses have certainly seen already that using un*x-type OS'es can give great results in terms of stability and power. However, recently they are also seeing that it's really difficult to make money by producing GPL'ed software. All the PHB's are seeing all these companies that produce linux products folding. It's only natural that if they hear about BSD, and hear that the license allows them to take the software and not release their changes, that they are going to want to move to BSD where they can use the traditional proprietary business models they are used to.
disclaimer: This post is in no way meant to imply my preference of one license over another. That's one holy war I desperately wanna avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you hit the nail directly on the head with this one. Most companies aren't really all that adverse to working with free software, but if they can't make any money off of the product they can't produce it. The GPL intentionally makes it very difficult to make money off of the software. However the BSD license allows a company to "value add" software and sell those enhancements for a profit. This is why you see FreeBSD hidden in things like routers (Juniper Routers for instance) and firewall. While the concept of profit may be abhorant to some of the more rabid GPL zealots, the simple fact is that profit is the basis for a capitalist economy, which is what keeps America running.
:/
Of course there are advantages to the GPL from a community sofware point of view. In fact for personal projects it is probably the superior license, but if you are a for-profit company the GPL is something of a hinderence.
Flames away...
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
I read the internet for the articles.
The company is making an option and not turning fields. One can use either Linux or NetBSD. If anyone reads the article then it will clear read this. And I think this is great. A company is giving its customers the option of choosing the OS it may fit their needs. No many companies can do this as such thing demands some supplementary effort for development and maintenance. It's a pitty how /. reacted to it.
It seems people there fought so long against M$ that they are becoming M$ themselves: "If you aren't exactly in our side then you are another enemy..."
Apple is going to repeat its feat of becoming the largest shipper of RISC boxes with the introduction of the PPC by becoming the largest shipper of Unix systems with the introduction of OS X.
Competition. Nah. Against who?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I question the true business value for BSD. Consider what Linux Torvalds said: "start using *BSD. *BSD users (and developers) are all complete jackasses, so you'll fit right in" .
cpeterso
Not really; WindRiver's market is embedded systems; they deal in embedded realtime systems.
As for competition.. it's rediculous to speak of 'competition' between things that aren't commercial entities. OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, these exist because people want them to, not because of some company.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share.
Gosh, the Wall Street Journal indicated recently that Apple sales of Darwin-based MacOS X in the last month dwarfed "sales" of "free" unices by a long shot. That was a qualitative report. Does anyone know how many Apple actually sold?
If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Hmmm.... Darwin (pun intended), not wishful thinking, seems to control the fates of these systems.
in one week.
Ah, but this is /. buddy, and all I have to say is...
JAHAD!!!
Someone you trust is one of us.
If you are making improvements to a community supported project, you will give back the code anyway. Otherwise, you need to maintain your own fork and roll the improvements in. It is far better to get your changes into the final product.
Companies with BSD software are most likely to either: A) start with BSD code and morph it into something very different and proprietary, or B) release a value-add to the BSD code, and release the improvements to the BSD stuff to keep synced.
In case A, they could start from scratch (but it is a waste of effort and therefore inefficient, regardless of your holy war), or B, you get the code. In case B, if it is GPL'd, they are likely not to start the project, and therefore, you don't get more code.
Pre-web days, the GPL solved a problem because there was no concept of open source communities. Stallman's free software position had tremendous benefits, and did result in companies GPLing code to comply. However, in this day and age, the open source community creates enough of an incentive to get code released, without the formality of the GPL.
Example: SAMBA. Apple knows that good NT integration would go a long way towards making OS X a good corporate citizen. SAMBA has a solid implementation. However, as it is GPL'd, they can't build a SAMBA based login, etc., system and release it with the OS. Someone would have to package it up as an add-on, distributed separately. This benefits nobody.
I support free software, I try to release what I can. I provide all my clients with the source code to the systems that they paid me to write. I feel that it is the right thing to do. We even negotiate a transferability license if they want, I'm willing to provide all the freedoms of the GPL (even GPL'd code) for a fee.
However, I feel like the GPL is a mixed blessing. It does create an open-source playground where companies have an incentive to enter the GPL world.
At the same time, however, I feel that it is keeping valuable software from existing (benefitting nobody). Additionally, the concept of keeping the code free is silly. If I release code into the Public Domain or with the BSD license, that code is perpetually free as long as SOMEBODY hosts it somewhere. Improvements may not always be free, but the code is free.
The tradeoff is: is it more valuable to (potentially) get more free software out there by coercing companies, or will I get more value from propreitary add-ons, or even, will I get more free software by allowing proprietary add-ons and getting the patches released.
As a software author, you need to make a decision for your code.
One thing you should definitely do, however, is get people to assign copyright (like the FSF does). That way, if you think that their is an advantage to releasing under a new license, you can do so. Just realize that if you go BSD->GPL, the old code remains under BSD. If you go the otherway you are fine.
So the holywar compromise might be: release under the GPL, maintain copyright (and get updates assigned), then if a compelling case is made, you can proprietarily license it to a company making the add-ons (perhaps distributing or donating some of the fees, something to discuss in the assign copyright place), release under the BSD license, etc.
Both have their place, but you have to decide which will generate more benefit.
Alex
From the Q3 financial statement "We are filing for bankruptcy" at $0.00 per new distro, that makes how many new copies of Slackware and Stormix?
ho ho ho
360 degrees of Karma
This makes alot of sense to me. Businesses have certainly seen already that using un*x-type OS'es can give great results in terms of stability and power. However, recently they are also seeing that it's really difficult to make money by producing GPL'ed software. All the PHB's are seeing all these companies that produce linux products folding. It's only natural that if they hear about BSD, and hear that the license allows them to take the software and not release their changes, that they are going to want to move to BSD where they can use the traditional proprietary business models they are used to.
disclaimer: This post is in no way meant to imply my preference of one license over another. That's one holy war I desperately wanna avoid.