FreeBSD, Linux Kernel Source Cross Reference

An anonymous reader writes "Robert Watson of the FreeBSD Core Team has put up a FreeBSD and Linux kernel source cross reference based on the LXR software used for the Linux kernel cross reference. The stated purpose is to make it easier for FreeBSD users and developers to explore and understand the FreeBSD code, as well as to compare the FreeBSD approaches with abstractions and implementation in the Linux kernel. This should help with portability, compatibility, and architectural cleanliness. Robert has posted to the FreeBSD mailing lists indicating he'll be pushing source code for other *BSD systems and Darwin in the near future as well. Sounds like this may be a really useful site for FreeBSD developers, but also for all open source kernel developers (Linux and others)."

Comments

Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

[DShard]

isn't this dangerous for BSD developers when looking at GPL software to place less restrictions on there code which could arguably be derivative from Linux. I would think FSF would get their panties that much but I have read quite a bit from Stallman who seems to have an axe to grind with the GPL linux, let alone the closable BSD's.

Here's the deal

[ciaran_o_riordan]

> isn't this dangerous for BSD developers when looking at GPL software

BSDers can look, and learn (or laugh). They just can't copy the code.

> could arguably be derivative from Linux

Copyright covers work of an author, not ideas. So as long as they only borrow ideas, they'll be fine.

> I would think FSF would get their panties that much

That's not much of a sentence, is it :)
FSF own no FreeBSD-kernel code, and only own bits of Linux. I don't see any problems here.

> read quite a bit from Stallman who seems to have an axe to grind with the GPL linux

You're probably talking about proprietary binary-only modules being linked to Linux at runtime?
Nothing to do with a cross-reference.

> let alone the closable BSD's

[Free|Net|Open]BSD is Free Software, but the freedom isn't protected by copyleft, so anyone can make a modified version and not contribute their modifications back to the original developers. This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:Here's the deal

[Brandybuck]

This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.

Though there may be no legal demands to open the code, there are many other pressures to do so. One big one is economic incentive to avoid closed forks. This was probably the biggest factor leading to the opening of Darwin.

But a more subtle incentive, and one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply that it's the right thing to do. When you don't treat your users as potential thieves, but with respect, you tend to find that they will gladly open their derivative bits without you even asking. I've get patches to my own BSD licensed works, without asking for them. They spontaneously come in.

The reason for this is community, not licensing. When you deliberately exclude people from your community, they of course will not participate in it. BSDi was always a part of the BSD community, and has always contributed huge chunks of *original* code to BSD projects. But the FSF never made NeXT feel welcome, so they had to hound and badger them into opening the ObjC frontend. Maybe if the GNU project hadn't been so isolationist, they wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.

When you treat people like theives, you'll find that people are theives. When you treat them with respect, you'll find that most will behave quite respectably.

pistols at noon

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Call me a cynic, but I get the feeling we won't agree today :)

Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.

This is fact. So any theoretical arguments about BSD creating a more productive atmosphere, are automatically incorrect. All that's left is to figure out why the GPL-based community has been more effective. I'll stake a guess it's because copyleft levels the playing field.

> one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply
> that it's the right thing to do

The right thing to do is to give freedom to computer users. Permission to create software that doesn't pass on these freedoms is of no use for this goal. So the GPL trades this in return for securing freedom.

Ciaran O'Riordan