Slashdot Mirror
Taking MicroBSD for a Test Run
LiquidPC writes "In this article Jeremy Reed of BSDNewsletter.com talks about installing MicroBSD, what features make it special, troubles and successes I encountered, and the beauty of the BSD license."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
If it's allowed by the license, then it's not stealing. Someone obviously made a concious decision to release the software under the BSD license. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
You can't STEAL something that is licensed so people can use it anyway they want. Even if microsoft took the BSD TCP/IP stack, so what? What's the big deal if microsoft is using BSD's TCP/IP stack, it's not like microsoft took it and said BSD couldn't use it anymore. Microsoft should be allowed to take their TCP/IP stack and not having to release all their new source code; the original source is still available if you want to download it. You're making a big deal out of nothing.
install OpenBSD using only base31.tgz etc31.tgz and bsd, you'll have an install that takes about 96mb and has more than enough tools to run pf, bridging and altq (all for setting up a very useful firewall), and even has pop server, sshd, apache, perl - plenty for a basic server.
-f
www.blackant.net
A side note, I browse at a two threshold and at this point I see two posts. How does such a pro-MS, relatively content-less post such as yours make it to +4 Insightful so quickly?
At the time MS (and even AT&T) were accused of taking code the BSD licence had one more clause then it has now. Basically a credit clause, you had to acknolage BSD in your documentation (and maybe on screen).
The big deal is BSD asked for one very small and specifc (and fair!) form of payment, and they were denyed. That makes it theft.
Fairly serious theft in my book. The university put in a pretty impressave motion for "injunctave prayer for relief" diring the AT&T vs. BSDI lawsuit on those grounds too, something about "irreparable harm to the reputation of the University"....
You seem not to understand that people are diffrent. There are many, many developers that wants companies to use their source, and they dont care if they make money of it.
The BSD license is not friendly at all to the developers producing code.
i can't agree with you in that.
if you write a class with basic functions, let's say a textbox, and you give the sources to me, and i write a hole application using your textbox, i think i have the right to sell my product back to you.
you just wrote the textbox. i did a lot of work around it.
just like apple did.
I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
May I ask what debian has to do with FreeBSD in any way shape or form?
I think your viewpoint is biased and ridiculous. Expand your horizons before commenting.
// -- http://www.BRAD-X.com/ --
Yes, BSD-licensed code may end up in commercial products. But that often beats the alternative. I'd much rather see Microsoft use a piece of software with a BSD license than have them hack their own--I already know that whatever they come up with themselves is going to be less compatible with the rest of the world and usually technically worse.
Most companies who use BSD code and try to keep it closed sooner or later realize the futility of their endeavor and publish it--there is just no point on keeping software closed when other people have very similar software already for free.
The GPL relies on a contractual obligation to ensure source availability. BSD relies on something much simpler: laziness.
The LGPL and GPL both are very useful, and I use them for my software too. But BSD isn't "insane"--it's a valid license and a good approach to open source software. And sometimes, giving commercial users more than they "deserve" is a good idea because it helps get the APIs and architecture of free software systems into commercial and proprietary products.
So, here is how I see good licensing choices that promote free software:
For software like kernels and command line tools, the GPL/LGPL often isn't very strong anyway because most commercial uses would not involve linking with the code. Note again that the GPL (or some even more restrictive license) isn't always the best choice for promoting free software. Imagine where Linux and free software would be today if the Linux kernel only allowed the execution of free software applications, or if the X11 window system only allowed the display of GPL'ed GUI apps.
So, in short, all of the *GPL and BSD licenses have their purpose. Which one is best for the promotion of free software depends on the software and the potential users.
I'm reading a Computer Networks textbook right now. The author frequently points out that the success of the TCP/IP stack can be largely attributed to the BSD license because companies had access to a well-engineered network staff for free. Otherwise, OSI protocols might have been chosen as they were the "hot" research/development topic of the 80's.
Exactly. This is why I prefer the BSD license - it is truly a gift, unlike the GPL, which just pretends to be.
I once read a story about "Freedom: I Won't", the idea that everyone has the basic right to say "I won't" when requested to do something by another, and that answer must be accepted.
The BSD license says "I won't. I've chosen to freely give this away. I won't make money off it, but if you want to add your own code to it and try to make money off the combination, you're free too. It's a gift, and like any gift, can be resold."
The GPL says "I won't - and you won't either. If you use this code, you become beholden to us, and you must release your code in order to further our political ends."
The GPL violates my Freedom: I Won't: it tries to dictate to me. Well...I Won't use the GPL then.