For OpenBSD, "No More Apache Updates"

joshmccormack writes "On June 6th Henning Brauer, an OpenBSD developer announced on one of the OpenBSD mailing lists that the version of Apache shipped with OpenBSD will stay with 1.3.29, due to Apache's license changes. There will be bug fixes, but no more updates. Discussion on blogs, websites and mailing lists on what's next bring up some interesting ideas and strong opinions. Difference of opinion and control have been catalysts to the growth of OpenBSD in the past. Will this be like the birth of pf in OpenBSD, or even the start of OpenBSD itself?"

Comments

Story: check..

[denisb]

Direct links: fail.
More info to read up on: fail.
Reference to the relevant list / list archive: fail.

Perhaps this story could be fleshed out a little ?
I'll google it or use some other news source to find more about this, but...

Re:Story: check..

[albalbo]

A link for you.

But you're right, it's a very content-free post.

Re:Story: check..

[nocomment]

no kidding!

Since I'm subscribed to the mailing list I've gotten to read all about it for the last couple days. Here's a link to the mailing list archive....here

A page to actually read more on this is here.

Re:Story: check..

[afabbro]

Content-free? You mean this doesn't explain everything? ;) "We've been clear: Their new license contains more stuff, and we do not accept MORE STUFF in licenses." - Theo

Re:Story: check..

[molnarcs]

You are right, a link or two might have helped. After googling a little, I found this announcment on undeadly.org

Re:Story: check..

[HyperbolicParabaloid]

If only this had been in the post, then the post might not have been so Atkins-friendly.

So what?

[Rick the Red]

It's not like we can't get Apache somewhere else. This is Yet Another Licensing Dispute, and the solution is -- as always -- to just download whatever you want to run on your own if it doesn't come bundled with the OS.

The only way this is even close to what happend with ipf/pf would be if the OpenBSD folks decided to write their own web server and release it under the BSD license, which isn't going to happen because they're OS folks, not web server folks.

Re:So what?

[the morgawr]

While I agree with you, it is entirely possible that someone could take the OpenBSD version of Apache (which has a ton of security patches that never got added back to the main tree) and use it to make OpenHTTPD. If enough people and vendors were concerned about the license change, it could even become the new standard.

Re:So what?

[Pieroxy]

I think it is now time to fork once again OpenBSD. I'd suggest the new name to be OpenApacheBSD.

Cheers.

Re:So what?

[molnarcs]

It seems they might consider thttd (well, I'm at the part of the messages when someone brings it up). At first glance it looks pretty nice (the OpenBSD folks only need to add ssl support for it). From their webpage:

thttpd is a simple, small, portable, fast, and secure HTTP server.

Simple:
It handles only the minimum necessary to implement HTTP/1.1. Well, maybe a little more than the minimum.

Small:
See the comparison chart. It also has a very small run-time size, since it does not fork and is very careful about memory allocation.

Portable:
It compiles cleanly on most any Unix-like OS, specifically including FreeBSD, SunOS 4, Solaris 2, BSD/OS, Linux, OSF.

Fast:
In typical use it's about as fast as the best full-featured servers (Apache, NCSA, Netscape). Under extreme load it's much faster.

Secure:
It goes to great lengths to protect the web server machine against attacks and breakins from other sites.

It also has one extremely useful feature (URL-traffic-based throttling) that no other server currently has. Plus, it supports IPv6 out of the box, no patching required.

After reading its man page it seems to me they have similar philosophy to pure-ftpd: simplicity and security. (thttpd, just like pure-ftpd, doesn't need a config file, but if you decide to write one, it has a very easy syntax ... not that apache was terribly complex).

Re:So what?

[the morgawr]

how well does it handle dynamic content (like using php and perl)? Obviously it can't use mod*; so is it restriced to CGI? Wouldn't CGI be a step back as far as speed and security go?

Re:So what?

[geirt]

Secure:
It goes to great lengths to protect the web server machine against attacks and breakins from other sites.

Well, you shold try to google for thttpd security . It has a security record which makes Windows 95 look pretty good.

Re:So what?

[Triumph The Insult C]

no, downloading apache elsewhere and running it is not recommended. the asf/apache still has got security bugs that are patched by openbsd/apache, but they (asf) refuse to accept the patches. that's why the openbsd description is (1.3.29 ... + patches)

Re:So what?

[aled]

No way! I vote for FreeNetOpenApacheBSD_without_licence_issues_but_pa tents_maybe.

Re:So what?

[Thing 1]

Is it just me, or does that name sound like something Bill the Cat would say?

Re:So what?

[@madeus]

I agree it's been awful in that respect :-(

Re:So what?

[joshmccormack]

Here's where you can find info on thttpd running CGIs.

It appears, from their benchmarks, that performance running test C CGI's is very good for thttpd.

Seems like it might be best for simpler scripts, tough, as it appears that CGI execution is serialized, so "...one long running
script will block all other requests." Here's another explanation.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google for:
thttpd security: 26000 results
apache security: 2860000 results

I'm not entirely sure that google results are conclusive.

Re:So what?

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

Hmmm. Non-forking model.

For specific solutions requiring fast startup and minimal size for serving static pages, I bet thttpd is perfectly reasonable.

I'm not sure a non-forking, 100% in memory, server can replace a full commercial installation of Apache (when tuned properly, that is).

Not having looked at thttpd in any real way, this is my first concern.

I also depend on a fair amount of module support in Apache (so obviously, I'm not _that_ concerned with performance!) so switching to some new model might be a bit of a challenge.

Now that I think about it this way, I wonder how useful a "J2EE" model of webserver might work. Have a standard server framework that one can tweak via add-ons. Whether this is done via JavaBeans, or native plugins is not the point. I'm only riffing on the idea of a standard server framework that can implement a true plugin protocol using some kind of published and open API.

I'm sure this has been thought of already. I wonder if there is an implementation (other than general-purpose app servers, like JBoss)?

Re:So what?

[geoffspear]

Well, actually reading the resulting pages instead of just looking at the numbers would help a bit.

I, for one, am shocked that there are 26,000 total pages that mention thttpd at all, let alone with "security" thrown in.

Re:So what?

[JWSmythe]

thttpd does do CGI's (Perl of course is included there). There was a way to make PHP work with it. Last time I read the documentation, it was anything but optimal.

We use thttpd on quite a few of our static servers, and I have to say it's absolutely fabulous. Instead of thousands of tasks that Apache 1.3.x would run, it has just one. Well, we start up a few sessions, and found a dual 1.4Ghz machine with 1Gb RAM has absolutely no trouble sending out 150Mb/s through teql bound NIC's. That's 150Mb/s of small files (HTML and images), not 150Mb/s of mp3's or videos. We tried Apache 2.0.x also, for it's single-threaded mode, something would mess up and make Apache hang after a few days and refuse to restart without rebooting the entire machine. That's not really acceptable in a high-load production environment.

It's kinda nice to hop on those machines, and see just a couple dozen tasks running and the machine being pretty much idle. That, and our uptime is usually outragous.

This is from a machine pushing out 40Mb/s right now. The loadavg is a little higher than normal, because I was running top. :)

# cat /proc/loadavg
0.19 0.14 0.06 1/28 25770

This is from the logs for one process. Obviously, we've overrun it's byte counter. :)

Jun 12 03:14:13 voy06 thttpd[17430]: up 54000 seconds, stats for 3600 seconds:
Jun 12 03:14:13 voy06 thttpd[17430]: thttpd - 264517 connections (73.4769/sec), 307 max simultaneous, -712678350 bytes (-197966/sec), 475 http
d_conns allocated
Jun 12 03:14:13 host thttpd[17430]: libhttpd - 6183 strings allocated, 3068596 bytes (496.296 bytes/str)
Jun 12 03:14:13 host thttpd[17430]: map cache - 2283 allocated, 2183 active (70290217 bytes), 100 free; hash size: 65536; expire age: 60
Jun 12 03:14:13 host thttpd[17430]: fdwatch - 1573422 polls (437.062/sec)
Jun 12 03:14:13 host thttpd[17430]: timers - 237 allocated, 237 active, 0 free

But I do love Apache for it's power. You can do anything with it. We use it on about half of our web servers.

We don't restrict ourselves to saying "We're an [anything] only shop." We'll use what works best for the application.

Re:So what?

[ArbitraryConstant]

thttpd was discussed, but they said pretty emphatically that they're happy with Apache 1.3.29 + patches.

Re:So what?

[Chmarr]

Ah, you're confusing THTTPD (threaded hyper text transport protocol daemon) with THPTT (threaded high pustulence tongue transport) :)

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a way to make PHP work with it. Last time I read the documentation, it was anything but optimal.

Well, if OpenBSD starts shipping it by default, we can only expect more development in that area. So maybe that will change.

BSD is dead!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, BSD is dead!

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of dead BSD in Soviet Russia welcoming our new BSD overlords!! /Troll

Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

As if OpenBSD is more free than Apache! Where's the install ISOs, Theo?

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid troll. People have harped on this ad-nauseam.

Theo makes his living by selling packaged OpenBSD install disks (with CVS checkouts of the source, precompiled packages, etc.). The fact that he sells OpenBSD to pay his bills doesn't make it any less free then RedHat selling Linux.

Also if you want to use a CD based install, try here.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Also if you want to use a CD based install, try here.

Note that this link is for booting and loading install/upgrade program only. You can go on with a network install from it. CD's layout are copyrighted by Theo de Raadt. You can, however, download and make your own bootable CD.

No posts thus far - an omen?

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

de Raadt might just be fanatacizing himself out of existence.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[the morgawr]

I disagree, one of OpenBSD's goals has always been to provide a base system that is as unrestricted as possible. It sounds to me like they are just taking steps to ensure they don't introduce a more restrictive license to the base system.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't count on it, son.

Every time something like this comes up...he turns it into something good. His reputation grows, and the idea of quality software over Every Imaginable Feature spreads.

I doubt there will be an OpenBSD replacement for Apache. However, Theo knows one thing most people forget: you can whine and moan all you want, but when you accept the product, they win. However, if a few teams stand up and say, "This is NOT acceptable, we will NOT tollerate it", maybe something can change. XFree86 has managed to marginalize themselves, and convinced themselves that a whole lot of nothing:
http://www.xfree86.org/distro-support.html
consti tutes "community support" for their license fiasco. Maybe Apache is next.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Goo.cc]

de Raadt's stance on licensing is the proper road to take, and commendable. From my observations, Debian is the only other operating system group that is as dedicated to free software as OpenBSD is.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Brandybuck]

It sounds to me like they are just taking steps to ensure they don't introduce a more restrictive license to the base system.

Reading through the Apache 2.0 license, I cannot find anything that is more restrictive than before. It's actually less restrictive in some areas, in an attempt to be compatible with the GPL. The two major differences are:

1) Legalese. The original BSD-like Apache license was quite loose in its wording. This scares the crap out of most corporate lawyers ("OMG, there's no clause imdemnifying us against jaywalking!"). So the new license has been tightened up with lawyer-friendly language.

2) Patent license. The old license was a copyright license. It didn't cover patents. The new one does. You're gaining rights as a user with this.

I really don't understand what OpenBSD's problem is with this. It's a free license. It's a "copycenter" license. It's unrestricted and unencumbered. I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the OpenBSD perspective, you are completely missing the point:

GPL: OpenBSD does not consider the GPL to be a "free" license. Becoming more "GPL compatable" may be viewed as a benefit to the GNU and Linux people, but it is VERY much against the goal of the BSD projects. Restricting ANYONE'S use of a product is not a good thing in our mind.

1) "Legalese" is a bad thing. If you gotta get lawyers involved to understand it, it is bad. BY ITSELF, that's grounds for rejection.

2) When did software patents or anything regarding patents and software become a good thing (at least as commonly used)?

The new license is much longer and more complex. This is a bad thing (in a BSD advocate's view).
The BSD license is very simple: Start with the basic rights of a copyright holder, and release ALL of them except the right to identified as the author, giving the USER FULL RIGHTS TO DO BASICLY ANYTHING WITH THE CODE other than claim/change authorship or sue for dammages.

Use it. Imbed it. Give it away. Sell it. With or without source code. WHATEVER. Now...add extra words to the license: HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY GET MORE FREE? Anything you add is "taking away" rights. Anything you do to "protect" yourself is again, taking away from the potential userbase of a product.

The point of the GPL seems to be to keep Open Source software from getting utilized by commercial software vendors. That's a noble goal -- you work for free, you want others to be able to enjoy your work for free. But, you are saying the CODE is free, not the useage of it.

The Point of the BSD license is to get the software USED in any sense of the word. BSD authors would prefer that their good software be USED in commercial products, rather than having the commercial vendors writing more flawed, or incompatable, or alternative protocols.

Do you think Cicso would have put a GPL'd SSH into their products? Probably not: they'd have done their own management application, which would only run on Windows machines or a few Unixes, or stuck with telnet. GPL advocates would probably say that was a "victory for freedom of the code", as the (hypothetical) GPL-SSH code wasn't used to make a profit by the evil Cisco. BSD advocates would prefer that the code be FREELY USED by ANYONE, including Cicso, Microsoft, Sun, HP, Intel, Motorola, IBM, and anyone else. Restricting ANYONE, no matter how "evil" they are perceived to be by someone is very much against the point of the BSD license.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Brandybuck]

This is a bad thing (in a BSD advocate's view)

I am a BSD advocate. The license is certainly longer, and in a way, that's bad because fewer people can understand it. But my understanding is that it is necessary. In the past we used licenses to tell other hackers that they had permission to use our software. But we are no longer a community of hackers, we now have lawsuit happy lawyers among us. When you have major lawyer-bound organization using (and contributing) to Apache, you can't hold on to the pollyanna licenses of the past.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[perlchild]

Actually, it's quite the opposite. OpenBSD's creed of "Security first" condemns it to a sort of "media obscurity" (nothing kills a story like "It doesn't do anything fancy, and just works") yet Theo's colourful disagreements with practically everyone under the sun keeps the mindshare of OpenBSD alive and well.

Couple that with their habit of doing things differently from everyone else just once in a while to keep track of who's watching, and you have a winner.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

Do you think Cicso would have put a GPL'd SSH into their products? Probably not: they'd have done their own management application, which would only run on Windows machines or a few Unixes, or stuck with telnet. GPL advocates would probably say that was a "victory for freedom of the code", as the (hypothetical) GPL-SSH code wasn't used to make a profit by the evil Cisco. BSD advocates would prefer that the code be FREELY USED by ANYONE, including Cicso, Microsoft, Sun, HP, Intel, Motorola, IBM, and anyone else. Restricting ANYONE, no matter how "evil" they are perceived to be by someone is very much against the point of the BSD license.

FOOL. The GPL does not restrict anyone from using GPL licensed code. It restricts the ability to hinder or encumber the code and that is the choice that users must make. BSD is free beer, certainly--no wonder corporations love to suck it up. GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not. You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is. I suggest that the GPL is far more important to software as a result. I don't care whether CISCO or whomever makes money--I care that quality code remains in the community. (AND note, they can equally well make money with GPL'd code--they only have to share back their modifications. Is that really asking too much?)

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

they only have to share back their modifications

Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.

See how it is restrictive now?

LGPL, that is a much less restrictive license.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. That's a bit restrictive to me. As a result, we don't use any GPL code in my company, because we would have to integrate it within our app, and our app would become GPL by that action.

See how it is restrictive now?

Hi. Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I'm fully aware of that point. As I said, it is user restrictive, not code restrictive. For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code? On what grounds can your ethical argument other than, "Everything for Silas!" Why should it be a one way street where the code you are acquiring is made to work for you (free beer) but you give nothing back?

If anything, the GPL promotes more code being made freely available than any other license since every other license seems to end at a piriah's doorstep. To be charitible, your plan is not really helpful to anyone except yourself. It doesn't even help the code you are embedding into your codebase since you aren't improving the code you are appropriating but rather, as far as you are concerned, you are improving your codebase.

Again, when code is merged, who's to say which code is which anymore? It is a merging of two to make a new whole. Why should that merging be a one way street that starts in the "free code" (as in freedom) community and end up in the "closed code" (as in proprietary) community?

Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are? LGPL is a fine license, it just doesn't do for code what the GPL does.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Thanks for taking time to reply. Yes I'm fully aware of that point.

Fuck you, and it's quite fucking obvious you aren't aware of anyone else's opinions but your own.

As I said, it is user restrictive, not code restrictive. For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code?

It's not user restrictive or code restrictive, it's developer restrictive.

On what grounds can your ethical argument other than, "Everything for Silas!" Why should it be a one way street where the code you are acquiring is made to work for you (free beer) but you give nothing back?

I dunno, uh, maybe so I don't have to let Joe Blow and all my competitors see WTF I'm doing?

To be charitible, your plan is not really helpful to anyone except yourself.

What if I just want to make some fucking money without worrying about some asshat asking for source code?

Again, when code is merged, who's to say which code is which anymore?

Merge? With what? My code, my product.

Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are? LGPL is a fine license, it just doesn't do for code what the GPL does.

Do you see how stupid GNU/Zealots are? Why is it that you can't see the strengths of BSD vs GPL instead of blind zealotry. This is why Apple chose BSD, because thay have enough blind robots at their command.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

Well, first, I would like to apologize for the AC asshole that replied to your post. Clearly brainless.

Second, I didn't say anything that contradict your post. BSD and GPL are different licenses. I totally understand the different approaches.

One difference, though, is that you tend to discard BSD against GPL which is - to you - better. You have to understand that different people may think differently.

Las of all, one of your last statements: "Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?".

On that I will disagree. GPL is more restrictive than BSD: I don't think you can find one situatons where someone would be impeached or forced to do something with BSD and not with GPL. The opposite trivially doesn't stand.

Don't be mistaken. This doesn't mean that a developper of BSD code will get more reward than a developper of GPL code. It means that whoever you are (integrator, developer, user), you have less restrictions with a piece of code under the BSD license than with a GPL code.

No flame intended, not quality judgement, just a fair statement: Less restrictions.

You want to use GPL code, everything has to be GPL
You want to use BSD code, go ahead

You want to write GPL code. All of it has to be that way
You want to write BSD code, go ahead.

The list could go on and on, proving one point: BSD is less restrictive than GPL. Nothing else.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

Hi again. No need to apologize for the AC (but thanks)--it comes with the teritory of having an opinion, particularly here at /., yes? Still, I'd rather that someone like that didn't complain about difficulties making money using someone else's code. If that AC wants to roll their own codebase from scratch, more power to them.

I'm not sure exactly how I gave the impression that I don't realize that other people have different opinions than mine--I surely appreciate that as a somewhat obvious fact. I don't live in a vaccuum. I'm trying to outline why I have made my choices, for better or for worse.

I think I understand what you are getting at in terms of BSD being less restrictive and perhaps I mischaracterized that part. Indeed, I thought I already agreed with that point. I am maintaining, though, that what is being counted as "restrictive" in your outline is the users (in this case, the user is anyone using the source as part of their own project) rights. The main difference I see between the GPL and say BSD is that once code is committed under the GPL, it (and its derivatives) can never be uncommitted from that model. It imposes conditions on its users. It is the code that is free at the expense of certain user rights whereas with the BSD, it is the users that are free at the expense of the code. The benefit of GPL'd code, in terms of the community (ie: all users) is that improvements and enhancements made to it are always available to everyone. Code under the BSD can not make that claim--I see it as the tragedy of the commons for the modern age.

I don't think its a big issue in the end. The fact that there are choices means that we all get to put our efforts behind the horses that we want to win (I'm actually mostly a libertarian and I don't believe people can be legislated to behave in certain ways--only persuaded). I also suspect that available BSD licensed software will stagnate because there is no incentive for people to share back enhancements and because people who are interested in donating the fruits of their labours to the common good have better licenses for that at their disposal. No, BSD licenses won't disappear, but BSD developments will necessarily be behind those in the GPL world: we won't ever see mass donations of code to BSD like we do under the GPL. In particular, we won't likely see large corporations which are presently benefiting from BSD software releasing their enhancements, etc. Why create a level playing field, even if that is for the common good? Isn't that a shame?

So yes, BSD is panacea for anyone whose sole goal is to make a buck because it doesn't restrict their use of the code in anyway. But it doesn't protect my right to use (again, as a developer) BSD derived code since that may be closed at someone's whim. This is the type of restriction I meant to imply. I've probably done a bad job of it once again, though.

Anyways, nice talking to you! Cheers!

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[the morgawr]

See the group's policy. Also see the ISC licenseused by OpenBSD (I'd paste it here but the lameness filter catches it).

The ISC liscense is a permisive license with no strings attached and covers both patents and copyrights (because you grant permission to DO THINGS, not a grant of a limited license).

The origial Apache liscense was very similar but added some advertising and attribution restrictions that generally have little or no cost. There are numerous problems with the new license including:

• The new apache license removes the implict grant of multiple permissions and replaces it with the explicit grant of just a copyright license and a patent license for specific uses(i.e. it gives you theoretically fewer rights).
• The patent liscense has a nasty termination clause that while well intentioned could cause all sorts of problems.
• It wastes hot air reminding people of things required under copyright law and granting permisions of things allowed by copyright law.
• It requires that changes made from the original be prominantly noted. This is espeicially obsurd as almost every Linux vendor has their own patch set for the server.
• The indemnification clause though well intentioned also has especially nasty consquences.

I could go on, but it's not needed. While you may not have a problem with these changes, they do clearly violate the stated policy of OpenBSD. I see nothing wrong with not updating the version of Apache they use to one with the new license. They will continue to provide and support the older version and hopefully the Apache foundation will change it's mind before they are forced to find a more permanant solution.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[OoSync]

Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase.

This is false. Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.

What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.

So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal. However, if it is a product the company distributes, then yes, your code will need to be GPL compatible. There is more than one way to do so, some which would not mean disclosing the source of your code.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.

This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well. Now that doesn't mean you need to make it public. It just means you cannot distribute the resulting binary without offering to distribute the source code as well.

So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app, then using GPL code is perfectly reasonable and legal.
Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't mean you have to make it public, but it still has to be GPL.

There is more than one way to do so, some which would not mean disclosing the source of your code.
Wow! That's a statement! Since the GPL is all about distributing the source code along with the binaries, I don't really know how you could do that. Please tell me if there is another solution.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Brandybuck]

What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.

For all practical purposes, this is the SAME THING!

If I am writing an application for the purposes of distributing it, then a GPL library is restricting my ability to distribute it. Even if I distribute it within embedded hardware. This is radically different from the LGPL.

your code will need to be GPL compatible.

You've got it backwards. Any code that is considered to be "derivative" by license must be released under the GPL. The "compatibility" refers to linkage/derivation in the other direction.

Since this is frequently misunderstood, let me offer an example. You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Brandybuck]

For example, if you want to embed some GPL'd code into your existing code, why should that not mean you have to share back your private code?

No one has any problems with that. I am a huge fan of the BSD license, and *I* have no problem with that.

The problem is that the FSF considers dynamic linkage to be derivation. Thus you can "run afoul" of the GPL without embedding any GPL code into your own. You can fall under its restrictions by distribution completely original software. This is a restriction on use, not distribution, copying or modification.

Now do you see how restrictive BSD licenses are?

I'm imagining this petty dictator somewhere saying "now do you see how restrictive western style democracy is?"

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Brandybuck]

I also suspect that available BSD licensed software will stagnate

You mean like the stagnating Apache the topic is about? The old Apache license was merely the BSD license with a trademark/advert clause.

Prepubescent Slashdot trolls like to joke about BSD dying, but the fact of the matter is that for the thirty year history of BSD licensed code, it has never once stagnated. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, all under the BSD license, are growing at a tremendous rate.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

Prepubescent Slashdot trolls like to joke about BSD dying, but the fact of the matter is that for the thirty year history of BSD licensed code, it has never once stagnated. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, all under the BSD license, are growing at a tremendous rate

That's true--but not nearly as fast as GPL'd code. As BSDers like to note, GPL code is viral, so it will undoubtedly grow faster as long as people find the values it ensures worthwhile for adoption.

You raise a good point though--the BSD is older than the GPL. Yet which has more code licensed under it? Which has more active developers? For all of the supposed benefits of the BSD, why is it trailing the GPL in those metrics? This is my meaning--I am not trying to bash BSD code or users and I wish that community well. My opinion, though, is that they will find themselves with an ever decreasing mindshare. Only history can say if I am wrong (or right) about that.

Cheers!

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

I'm imagining this petty dictator somewhere saying "now do you see how restrictive western style democracy is?"

You know Brandybuck, that was an unwarrented and unkind remark. Besides, the hallmark of western democracy is "freedom for all", whereas I am maintaining that the BSD hallmark is "freedom for me". I expected more from you based on your previous comments.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[NickHolland]

Time to de-lurk, as other ACs are resorting to name calling, and don't want to be confused with them. I wasn't being so much an Anonymous Coward as a "Lazy Bum", too lazy to look up my old slashdot name and PW. :)

Most of our disagreement here appears to over terms and usage. I think we've made our respective meanings clear...now readers get to decide for themselves which they prefer 8).

Hopefully we can also agree with this point: there are benefits and downsides to both BSD and GPL licenses -- the choice of license should always be up to the coder. I would also think that the acceptability of each should always be left to the person using the software in question.

HOWEVER, I do want to pick on this statement of yours: "BSD derived code ... can disappear while GPL derived code can not" This is not true (at least for my definition of "dissappear"). Once a work is released with a license, that license can not be revoked on that particular version of the source. The project may fork at that point, with someone taking a BSD'd project in a non-BSD direction (i.e., Apache or XFree86 or SSH), but the OLD VERSIONS remain with their old license. Believe me, if SSH.com could revoke the old v1 ssh code's BSD license, they would in a heartbeat. They took their app closed source, OpenSSH took the old BSD code and extended it (and a side note: I have no doubt that both OpenSSH and SSH.com's products are better because of the existance of the other, which means the users win).

Now, if by "can disapear", you mean developement can take place that is not fed back to the open source community, sure, but that's not what I would call "disappearing". XFree86, Apache and SSH didn't "disappear" from the world, just got "less free" development. If the open source community cares enough to continue "free" development of BSD licensed code, they can.

As for is sharing back modifications "really asking too much?", the idea sounds great...however, it gets messy. Making a three line change in a GPL program? Sure, easy. Incorporating a small 100 line GPL'ed routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app GPL? That doesn't seem "fair" to me. Things get ugly if you start trying to draw a line here...lawyers get involved. The BSD philosophy is "just use it. Feed back your contributions if you wish to, but you are 'free' do to as you wish in that regard". Personally, I prefer that acts of generosity be voluntary...but that's me. :)

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

Great post. I used "disappear" in a slightly charged way, I'm afraid. Yes, for BSD styled code, the original is always available, necessarily. But I do think I said BSD derived code -- and what I meant to imply was the very more elaborate discussion you gave. Someone can take a BSD codebase, make changes and never release the sources--to me, that is disappearing the code, though I should think of a better way to describe it.

Otherwise I think you are spot on. Let people decide for themselves is the best of all solutions. It is important that folks like you and I and the others that posted make their opinions known, no matter how varied: as a very great man said, what we individually do is of no significance: but it is vitally important that we do it.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someone can take a BSD codebase, make changes and
never release the sources--to me, that is disappearing the code, though I should think of a better way to describe it."

This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.

Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

"Someone can take a BSD codebase, make changes and never release the sources--to me, that is disappearing the code, though I should think of a better way to describe it."

AC> This is a common misperception for GPL advocates, when they argue for GPL against BSD. The GPL code can "disappear" as described above, if the code and changes aren't in distribution.

AC> Generosity is about giving without expecting any return. The BSD license has higher deference in this regard.

That's a bullshit counter-point. I'm specifically talking about programs that are distributed and not private sole-use creations which couldn't be controlled anyhow. (I don't care what you do in your own bedroom, you know?)

Generosity is about giving without expecting return, but greediness is about taking without giving back. I will be generous, but not to the greedy. That is my choice.

There's a lyric in a song that goes like this:
we don't mind
we've been doing it all the time
but if you want us to sacrifice
you got to give something back to life

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the disagreements, it is that he is so often right! :)

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

yer not my father!

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the disagreements, it is that he is so often right! :)

He's right about three quarters of the time, and the other 25% of the time he's a fucking asshole who can't admit he's wrong.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[farnz]

However, you can split an application into parts that come from the GPL library, and parts that you wrote, which you can release under the BSD licence if you wish. Under copyright law, the combination of the two is licenced under the most restrictive combination of the two licences (in this case, the GPL). If I then rewrote the GPL library parts in a clean room (thus avoiding any copying of code), and released my rewrite under the BSD licence, you could then combine my library and your code, and have the application released under the BSD licence.

The only reason the GPL creates issues for compatibility is that the GPL both adds restrictions (thus, a GPL-compatible licence must permit those restrictions to be added), and prohibits you from adding further restrictions (thus, a compatible licence must not add restrictions the GPL doesn't). You can release an application built on GPL libraries under the BSD licence, so long as you are aware that it is only the application code that is BSD licensed; the combination of application code and essential libraries is GPL licensed, but your code alone does not have to be.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect this is about politics more than any actual license terms.

But the license terms are themselves completely political. The whole point of the GPL is for the FSF to enforce their view of how software should be distributed. The whole point of the alternatives is that not everyone agrees 100% with the FSF agenda. There's no difference between the terms and the politics behind them.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Kjella]

First off, you didn't say if you distribute your app, which I assume you do. If it's an inhouse tool, you don't have to distribute the code to anyone (as long as it is the same legal entity, your company, it's not distribution).

The issue with the BSD/LGPL licence is that you are more restrictive about releasing code under it because it is less restrictive. With it, people can take your work to make them profit, hell if they add enough value you may be paying to get a derivate of your own work.

The GPL is such a success because it's free enough and restrictive enough. A licence nobody is using is merely a nice curiousity. The GPL furthers the production of GPL code. The BSD code simply doesn't.

I agree though, that sometimes the GPL is unreasonable. If you need a small library/simple GUI etc. to a program where your own code is the great majority of the programming work, it is. But there's room for an interpretation like that. Taking a bunch of BSD/LGPL libraries/programs, make a proprietary program that's 99% other people's work isn't right either. The GPL errs on the right side, in my opinion.

I don't complain about Tivo or Red Hat or IBM making money of "not their" work. They provide add-on services I (or anyone) could choose to compete with. But if you take my code, make a proprietary program out of it, I've no chance to sell/service that program like you. My work has put *you* ahead. With the GPL, we're all equal. Same code, same starting point.

That puts a lot less restrictions on me when I ask this "Should I release this under an OSS licence at all?"

Kjella

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Nimrangul]

Not to free software no, I think you meant that the Debian team are most strict of the Linuxes about sticking to their licensing goals.

OpenBSD is definately more hardcore for keeping code free, that's why they don't accept the GPL, it's not free enough for them.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[runderwo]

This is not true. If you take a piece of GPL code and modify it, all your modifications have to be GPL as well.

Bullshit. The GPL is a distribution license. You can reject it, and you still have every right to use the software for whatever purpose you want, including private modifications. When you choose to distribute the software after rejecting the GPL, you then have only the rights given to you under default copyright law, which is to make a single archival copy that is to be destroyed when ownership of the original copy is transferred. The GPL _does not_ apply to you until you distribute a copy or a derivative work of the software which was licensed under the GPL.

Yes, but the rest of your app is de facto GPL. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't mean you have to make it public, but it still has to be GPL.

Wrong. As long as you are not distributing the GPL code itself or a binary dynamically linked to a GPL library, you have no obligation under the GPL. By the way, there is no case law upholding the dynamic linking clause. To be safe, just distribute your source code (under whatever license you choose).

Since the GPL is all about distributing the source code along with the binaries, I don't really know how you could do that

It's easy to satisfy the GPL. Either you distribute the source of both your software (under the GPL) and the GPL software to the person who received a binary comprising both, or make a written offer encompassing that. The catch is that if a written offer is made, it must be valid for any third party, not just the person whom you distributed the binary to. But you do not have to disclose this written offer to anyone besides the recipient of the binary.

If you meant, how do you get away with proprietary software linked to a GPL library, then the answer is simple - don't distribute binaries, ever. Let the user download and compile/link the source.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[runderwo]

you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.

Wrong. You can distribute the source code of your application that links to a GPL library under any license you wish. What you cannot do is distribute a linked binary comprised of your software and a GPL library under any license but the GPL.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[makomk]

The problem is that the FSF considers dynamic linkage to be derivation. Thus you can "run afoul" of the GPL without embedding any GPL code into your own. You can fall under its restrictions by distribution completely original software. This is a restriction on use, not distribution, copying or modification.

I've always considered that a bit strange too. If a program is dynamically linked to a library, it doesn't contain any code from the library (just headers and references to the library). So why should code that is dynamically linked to GPL'd libraries fall under the GPL?

I've always wondered what would happen if someone wrote a wrapper program around a GPL'ed library which received calls down a pipe, passed them to the library, and returned the response. Then, for a slight performance overhead, you could use the library from non-GPL'ed code - and it'd be hard to ban, because the GPL code would be in a seperate program from the non-GPL code!

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a restriction on use, not distribution, copying or modification.

No, it isn't. When I have obtained some code (the dyn. library in this case) which was "licensed" to me under GPL, I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Including linking it with any application (GPL, non-GPL doesn't matter) I want. The GPL only prevents me from distributing the result of that linkage.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application that links to a GPL library under the BSD license.

Actually that's false. Linking to something would not come close to being enough to prove derivitive status. Better would be something like:

You can distribute an application that links to a BSD licensed library under the GPL, but you may not distribute an application written so that it is worthless unless it links to a library solely licensed under the GPL under the BSD license.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

I think you should avoid the foul language. As for your comments regarding licenses not applying until you distribute....

copyright law doesn't apply at all except when you make copies. All licenses act this way you aren't saying anything unusual here. New code is GPLed whether you distribute or not, its just that if you don't distribute it the GPL doesn't require you to do anything.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

be impeached or forced to do something with BSD and not with GPL.

I can think of several things:

a) Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost
b) Be assured that improvements to the code are public

etc...

BSD is only more free for the first generation of users / developers then it gets less free.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

The problem is that the FSF considers dynamic linkage to be derivation. Thus you can "run afoul" of the GPL without embedding any GPL code into your own.

That's not true. What they consider is that dynamic linkage should be treated no differently than static linkage. Static linkage in and of itself is not suffecient to create a derived work. For example there are open source versions of printf that have been linked into commercial programs. They are not derived works of those programs. Rather what is required is that the code is only useful if linked (like a routine designed only to work with a particular piece of code).

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

I've always wondered what would happen if someone wrote a wrapper program around a GPL'ed library which received calls down a pipe, passed them to the library, and returned the response. Then, for a slight performance overhead, you could use the library from non-GPL'ed code - and it'd be hard to ban, because the GPL code would be in a seperate program from the non-GPL code!

The law doesn't regulate mechanism of linkage. The wrapper program would be useless without the library and hence is a derived work of the library. So unless you could prove the wrapper was written black-box style its under the GPL...

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

Incorporating a small 100 line GPL'ed routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app GPL?

How is this different than, "Incorporating a small 100 line commercial routine into a 10,000 line application forcing the entire app commercial".

BSD supporters seem to be OK with this model. A unified work pretty much takes on the restrictions of all of its parts.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

Redistribute the mixture you recieved without cost
So redistributing BSD code isn't free? I don;t understand your point.

Be assured that improvements to the code are public
Well, that's not an impeachment for you. You are not coerced into anything here, you are not impeached or forced to do something.

My point was: As a human being, if you use/distribute/write/etc code with BSD license, you have TWO restrictions:
1. You HAVE TO leave the copyright notice where it is
2. You CANNOT declare yourself the author of that code.

While you have these with GPL, you have a lot more. Hence the idea that BSD is less restrictive than GPL. More restrictions.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[ArbitraryConstant]

"A unified work pretty much takes on the restrictions of all of its parts."

That's true. That's why the commerical stuff isn't allowed into OpenBSD.

If a company somewhere out there wants to maintain their own fork of a previously BSDL program, they can. But that has no impact at all on the BSDL version, which remains as free as it ever was.

Microsoft uses BSDL code in the NT network stack (strong evidence from observing the behaviour), but that hasn't had any impact on the BSDs. Their network stacks are unchanged. Microsoft Services for UNIX uses OpenBSD code for a lot of the userspace stuff-- confirmed from OpenBSD copyright notices in the binaries. But OpenBSD hasn't been impacted at all.

They're commercial forks, but the original isn't affected. Microsoft doesn't have to contribute changes back, but that is the primary goal of the BSD license, not some unforseen side effect.

Also... remembe that there was a big lawsuit over this very issue. USL sued Berkley and USL got their asses handed to them. The BSD license came through its day in court long before anyone had heard of SCO.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

And my point was that you were drawing a conclusion not warrented. You created one scenerio: a first generation user gets a unified work which is exclusively licensed under the BSD license and wants to do something prohibited by the GPL.

Under all those conditions:
a) First generation
b) exlusively BSD components
c) Wants to transform licenses
he has more freedom than the GPL.
That's far short of proving that the license is more free in general. Changes to either (a) or (b) make the GPL more free.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

Please, change (a) or (b) and tell me how the person you are considering is more free with the GPL. Please, do.

You question my example, but so far I've been the only one to provide one. A little easy, if you want my inner feeling.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

OK

a) Someone who is using SGIs, HO, Suns... X server (first gen code was MIT~BSD license). They have no freedom with it at all.

b) Someone using Windows NT

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

Well, interesting.

Point A doesn't use BSD code, I fail to see how this is relevant. They can use first gen code and have full liberty with it, it's BSD. Or they can use gen 1234 of it which is not BSD and they have no liberty. So your first point proves that:
1. Using proprietary code is more restrictive than using BSD code. We knew that.
2. BSD code can be merged with proprietary code, without having that merged code being BSD. This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty: You can add YOUR stuff to it without making it public. Note that the original code is still BSD and free for all. People using that code (and only the BSD portion of it) are free as a bird.

Point b is quite obscure to me. How is Windows NT relevant here?

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[jbolden]

NT is a well known product which contains BSD subroutines that have been modified and improved inside a work which is primarily not BSD (unlike the case of the X server where the work was evolutionary ).

Anyway I think you should reread the thread. The point was examples where you had more freedom under GPL. If you are admitting you have more freedom you are conceeding the main point.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[Pieroxy]

The code that was used in Windows NT is still free and in use in many other OSes. Some free, some not.

It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument.

My post: This doesn't remove any liberty to people using BSD code. It actually adds one more liberty

Your answer: If you are admitting you have more freedom [under GPL] you are conceeding the main point.

I give it up right there.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[ignavus]

You are just like the person who says, "You can free your slaves whenever you want, but we must not outlaw slavery. Because that restricts people's freedom - their freedom to sell themselves back into slavery whenever they choose to do so."

Freedom to sell yourself into slavery is not "true freedom". But it is possible to dress it up as freedom.

And the BSD license which allows someone to release BSD code under a closed license isn't true freedom either - for exactly the same reason.

Handing out code without caring about its future is not freedom, it is neglect. There is a difference.

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[lahi]

GPL is free code--the code itself is free from the whims of its users. What is the difference? BSD derived code (which may be FAR more useful than the original sources) can disappear while GPL derived code can not.

But of course it can. Or cannot, depending on your POV.
If I derive code from GPL code, and don't release it to anyone, then delete it, it has disappeared, right? (AFAIK, GPL is about distribution, so what you do with GPL software in privacy is nobody's business.)

You're right about one thing: the GPL is *NOT* about user freedom while the BSD is.

I think this is an important point, you just made me realise why I prefer the BSD license. Stallman talks about "free software, free as in freedom, not beer" all the time. But I just came to the conclusion that this is nonsense: software is not sentient, does not possess a free will; software like all other IP is nothing but an expression of thoughts by someone, thoughts which themselves may be reflections and compositions of thoughts from others; it is pure form embodied in some physical matter.

Freedom is a property, indeed a fundamental right, of humans. Sometimes people are deprived of that right by others, either for good or bad reasons; but it remains their right nonetheless. What would it mean to liberate a beer? Pour it in the sink? "Dear Ale, you are now free to roam at your own will." How can beer or software be free, except as in "at no cost"? How can software be in possession of anything, not to say freedom?

Sometimes the phrase "Free speech" is also used. That is another nonsense phrase: it really should be "(somebody's) freedom to speak" - free speech is when I go to hear a speech, and I don't have to pay, freedom to speak is something entirely different. (I think this may be because, while verbing nouns is fairly safe, nouning verbs isn't.)

So BSD is about a meaningful and important concept: user's freedom, whereas GPL is about a nonsense concept: software's freedom.

-Lasse
(I hope this made sufficient sense. Although I regard my self as fairly good at English, it *is* a foreign language to me.)

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

Well, I'm sorry that my post got you to thinking that the BSD is somehow more agreeable to you than the GPL. Of course, more power to you. I think you are neglecting the fact that community developed software that is intended for the community at large should not come prey to single entities.

Certainly, as individuals we have many freedoms that we would not want curtailed, yet there are many individual freedoms, that for the good of all, we do want curtailed. For example, as a society of individuals we do not tolerate one individual taking the life of another since that necessarily impinges on the rights of the other. I see the BSD as falling into that same millieu.

By granting any individual unlimited rights, other individuals unnecessarily have their rights limited. This is why the GPL is often said to have the "right" balance. It allows for equal rights for all which, in my mind, is far better than unlimited rights for all--because that is, in an impossible fantasy.

Best regards! (and by-the-way, your english was excellent. My posts are probably more confusing and I'm a native english speaker)

Re:No posts thus far - an omen?

[xoboots]

It reminds me of the very first war humankind fought: For fire. They didn't understand you can give fire to someone else and still keep yours. This looks the same to me. BSD allow people to grab it and the core of it remains free. People that use BSD code are free to redistribute their modifications or not. People using GPL code are not. I think that's about the entire argument Please. Code is nothing like fire. Fire is arguably always the same when it is passed from one generation to the next (witness the Olympic Flame). Code is not. I think the point being made is that under the GPL, generation 1234 is available to everyone in the same way that generation 1 was available to everyone. This is clearly not the case for BSD code.

You may feel that there is nothing wrong with Microsoft (or anyone) using that BSD code and not sharing back their modifications (their "competitive edge") but that is in no way an argument for freedom. Most people (particularly free lunchers) forget that with freedom, obligation comes necessarily (as Sarte). Allowing one person to make a monopoly of their work based on the work of someone else is not freedom at all, at least, not by the standards that would apply to a collective of individuals.

This is really the crux: Unless you live in a vaccuum by your own lone self, your freedoms are necessarily restricted by mine, and vice-versa. This is an undeniable fact of community. Ignoring this is the tantamount error of the BSD and the recognition of this fact is the grace of the GPL. The issue that folks like I have with the BSD is that it allows someone to drink from the common pool until they are sated and then turn around and piss in it.

BTW, when collectives of free peoples do grant unlimited power to individuals, they tend to regret it later as it leads (inevitably) to despostism. If people could be trusted to do the right thing in all situations (ie. share back modifications, even though it is not required) then we wouldn't have any civil laws, would we? We can dance around the issues forever by saying things like "BSD allows me more rights, so it is more free" but in the end, I am forced to consider that a rather short-sighted view.

don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

... I just poured a bowl of steaming hot BSD down my pants!

Re:don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, nostalgia.

Question

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I have downloaded and compiled Gentoo Linux, and WOW it's amazing. Portage is amazing too. I've always wanted to try out the BSD distributions, but now that I've seen portage and the advantages of compiling the entire OS from source, I am wondering: does BSD come with anything like portage?

Now if I were a troll....

[IshanCaspian]

...I'd probably make some wiseass comment about how this means that BSD is dying...well...aww heck.

BSD IS DYING! DYYYYYYING!

Other OS vendors

[DieNadel]

What are other OS vendors doing? It's clear that the new license isn't GNU compatible, and I think that Debian is also going into a direction similar to OpenBSD on this matter.
Anyone care to elaborate on this?

Re:Other OS vendors

[Brandybuck]

The old Apache license wasn't GPL compatible either. In neither case should it affect Debian unless they choose to make a political stink out of it.

Re:Other OS vendors

[forlornhope]

Debian doesnt distribute stuff based on if it is GPL compatible. It bases it on if the software is DFSG-free. After that is the question of linking and Debian always tries to follow the license of the software. That is where the stuff about the binary only firmware in the kernel came from along with the XFree86 stuf. The linux kernel is not distributable with the firmware and all the GPLed software that depends on xlib cant link against it under the latest XFree86 license.

Re:Other OS vendors

[latroM]

It is incompatible with the GNU GPL, There are various licenses published by GNU; GPL,LGPL, GFDL. GNU is a project whose goal is to create a free unix like OS.

Re:Other OS vendors

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about Debian. Everything turns into a big political stink.

RTFA...

[enyalios]

Oh... hmm... it appears there isn't an FA to R.

Shit on me!

[Anonymous Coward]

DEAD OPERATING SYSTEM SKETCH Cast:
Mr. Praline: John Cleese
Shop Owner: Michael Palin

A customer enters an operating system shop.

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (The owner does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Owner: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Owner: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this operating system what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, *BSD...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead operating system when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable OS, *BSD, idn'it, ay? Beautiful kernel!
Mr. Praline: The kernel don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! It's resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (bashes at the keyboard) 'Ello, Mister *BSD! I've got a lovely fresh kernel update for you if you show...

(owner hits the keys)

Owner: There, it spewed some debug output to the command line!
Mr. Praline: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the keys!
Owner: I never!!
Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!
Owner: I never, never did anything...
Mr. Praline: (yelling and typing into the console repeatedly) 'ELLO COMMAND PROMPT!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock cron job!

(Rips out hard drive from computer case and thumps it on the counter. Shoves it back inside the case and reboots the system - blank screen.)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead operating system.
Owner: No, no.....No, it's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was finishing an I/O task! *BSD stuns easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That operating system is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of responsiveness was due to it bein' in the process of recompiling itself after a particularly comprehensive code update.
Owner: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for some dilettante dabbling.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for some DILETTANTE DABBLING?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I started Emacs?
Owner: *BSD prefers swapping everything out to the hard drive! Remarkable variant, id'nit, squire? Lovely kernel!
Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining the system when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been printing any text at all to the screen was because of all the WORRYING COMPILER WARNINGS encountered while it was being rebuilt.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was spitting out those warnings! If I hadn't updated the kernel with an unstable development build, you might have had your FTP server compromised [slashdot.org], and VOOM! Bye bye to your business.
Mr. Praline: "Server"?!? Mate, this OS wouldn't "serve" if you put four million volts through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Owner: No no! It's pining!
Mr. Praline: It's not pinin'! It's passed on! This OS is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! [lemis.com] It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisib

Re:Shit on me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst, you didn't read the latest memo....

Um, Netcraft confirms problems for Trolls:
June 8th 2004 Netcraft confirms FreeBSD growth to 5M hosts and 2.5M active websites

*BSD is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Shit on me!

[Anonymous Coward]

SHIT ON ME! It's official - Netcraft has fucking confirmed: *BSD is dying

Yet another cunting bombshell hit the "community" of *BSD asswipes when IDC recently confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of one single puny fucking percent of all servers. Coming hot on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more fucking market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is ingesting itself backwards, disappearing up its very own shitter, as fittingly exemplified by coming a piss poor dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a cock-sucking Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any fucking future at all for *BSD because that sorded, shit-filled, mutated testicle of an operating system is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink splashes across the accounting documents like a series of exploding bloodfarts. FreeBSD munches the most ass of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD cuntwipes Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying and its rotting corpse smells worse than a maggot, vomit, shit and piss cocktail.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the fucking numbers, shall we? OK!

OpenBSD wanker Theo states that there are a pathetic 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Oh, God, let's fucking see... The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore it's turd-suckingly obvious that there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore, by simple fucking arithmetic, there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. Surprise fucking surprise, this is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of those arseholes at Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD showed themselves to be a bunch of retarded tossers, went out of business and were taken over by BSDI who sell another special needs OS. Now BSDI is also a miserable failure, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house... pathetic.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily fucking declined in market share. *BSD is where it belongs, at death's door and its long term survival prospects are almost non-fucking-existant. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among moronic, dilettante shitheads. *BSD continues to Chew Satan's Dick And Fuck The Baby Jesus Up The Pooper. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD IS A FUCKING USELESS WASTE OF BITS AND IS DYING LIKE THE DOG THAT IT IS. IT MAKES ME SICK JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.

Thread Closed

[0x54524F4C4C]

*** This thread is marked as CLOSED ***
*** Please move on to another topic ***

This s about Patents and it is a strange complaint

[m_evanchik]

Reading the comments at undeadly.org, it seems the big beef is with a clause that covers patent issues of any code as well as copyright issues.

Basically, the clause says that if you have any patent claims to the code that you contribute (or is it just use? I'm not sure.) then you irrevocably grant license to others for those patents and if you sue , then you can't use Apache.

I'm unsure as to how this is a bad thing. Most "free" software licences were written before software patents were a big issue, and therefore only deal with software as a copyrightable, and not a patentable entity. Just as software code must be updated to deal with new operating enviroments, so legal licensing code must be updated to deal with a changing legal enviroment.

The new clause forces patent holders to play nice as well as copyright holders.

Would it be better to encourage lawsuits over patent issues?

Not a real problem

[jpkunst]

I don't think this will be a real problem. If Apache is no longer allowed in the OpenBSD base system it can simply be moved to ports/packages, and it will be just a pkg_add away - just as is now the case with Apache 2.0.

JP

Re:Not a real problem

[peacefinder]

It appears that the existing 1.3.29 (+ patches) apache will remain in the base OpenBSD install indefinitely. The OpenBSD folks have audited it for security, and it does what a basic web server needs to do. Anything beyond that is not really the OS vendor's problem anyway.

As always, if the end users need more features, they can install a newer version. But note the warning on the openbsd-misc list:

Subject: Re: no more apache updates
From: Henning Brauer

let me add one more thing.

it is of course possible to install an apache 1.3.31 or future ones
from source on OpenBSD.

however, doing so is one of the dumbest things you can do.

there is a number of serious security problems in apache that we have
fixed, and that have been offered them back, and they refused.

selfmade apache upgrade = security downgrade, ok?

Re:Not a real problem

[jpkunst]

But since everything is open source, it should be possible to apply any OpenBSD security patches to 1.3.31 or later, and offer that one (in ports/packages) as 1.3.31 (+ patches), right?

JP

Re:Not a real problem

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

In theory, this should be doable. In practice, it will be a mess of backporting and three-way merging.

Not to mention something you will have to do every time the Apache people release new versions with their own patches. You can only maintain your own abandoned tree for so long.

I guess you could build off of your own copy of their CVS tree, and just rebuild based on their tags. This defeats the purpose (to me) of a nice easy ./configure ...; make; make install.

Whom to complain to?

[gtrubetskoy]

You know whom to complain to.

I hope he means the US and EU governments here. Had there been no software pattents under incredibly lax oversight with the subsequent abuse thereof, the Apache Software Foundaton wouldn't be forced to write this clause into the license.

This is how APACHE got started

[Nonesuch]

The "APACHE" server project was originally a set of patches to the NCSA HTTPd, the name comes from "a-patchy web server".

Back around 1995, development of the NCSA sort-of-free web server was starting to die out, and developers who had been producing a set of patches to the NCSA project decided to "fork" their development branch.

After the fork, the majority of development effort concentrated in the new "Apache" project, and the NCSA HTTPd died out about a year later.

Re:This s about Patents and it is a strange compla

[TiggsPanther]

I think this is where the problems come in. From what I can tell (be warned: legal-speak confuses me immensely) it seems to be a necessary change because of the recent furore about software patents. It seems to be merely a restriction to prevent patent-holders from contributing their ideas to the codebase and then down the line trying to charge for use.

The problem then appears to stem from the fact that said restriction is a restriction - and is incompatible with the majority of current free/open licenses.
Or something, anyway. but basically it looks like changes which are a good idea in theory are incompatible with the letter of a lot of F/OSS licenses. And, like it or not, this means that it can cause problems unless/until the GPL/BSD/WTF licenses catch up with the changes.

I'm not so sure it's that the changes are nevessarily a "bad thing", more that the various F/OSS groups are showing that they take licensing seriously. And with the current anti-free FUD going around, showing that they will take serious steps to avoid breaking licenses can only be a positive step.
Sadly, the drawback is that to Play By The Rules sometimes they have to make unpopular decisions. But the flipside is that, if necessary, they can still fork from earlier versions.

Tiggs

Don't want GPLd code? Then write your own!

[KamuSan]

Then don't fsking use other people's code, write your own!

The essence of GPL is this:
Yes, you can use other people's work, but then you'll have to contribute some work yourself.

If you just take other people's work without giving something bakc, you're just a THIEF!

Re:This s about Patents and it is a strange compla

[ameoba]

I haven't read it myself but does this force you to open your patents up to everyone for any use or simply for apache-derived open-source projects?

Essentially it boils down to the difference between making your ideas public domain and GPLing them.

I can see the logic behind either approach, but the public domain-ish one seems to be more natural; to do otherwise would be like saying "I'm going to publish this information out in the open, call it Free but reserve the right to sue your ass back to the stoneage if you actually use it (or any ideas it gives you) for your own purposes".

Re:This s about Patents and it is a strange compla

[Triumph The Insult C]

it is bad because it places restrictions on the software past what are imposed by the bsd license. openbsd now uses the 2-clause license, and this new license apache uses (it's the same core issue (not free enough licenses) with cisco/vrrp and xfree86) a more restrictive license

theo has made it clear, a number of times, that nothing new will get into the tree with unfree licenses. he (and the rest of openbsd) want it this way.

really, it boils down to simplicity of the license. read the 30 or so lines of the 2-clause bsd license. then read this new apache license. then read the gpl. apache has just made their license more complex and as such, made their software less sought-after

Elegy for *BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Elegy For *BSD

I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

Re:Patents and it is a strange complaint

[m_evanchik]

So is the only "non-free" aspect of this that it restricts the freedom of contributors to sue over patent ownership of code that they themselves contributed?

There seems to be a paradox, because if patent holders can sue over contributed code, then the software is non-free for the user.
So with the clause, the contributor loses the freedom for preying on users legally, while without the clause, users retain the freedom to subject themselves to endless legal hassles.
This is a perversion of freedom absurd. The clause is fine and free.

One possibility is that somebody might be upset about the clause considering *countersuits* as another violation. This somebody might be big and blue.

GPL & BSD- expanding body of work

[nuggz]

The GPL encourages expansion of the GPL body of work.
The BSD licence encourages use of the code by everyone.

Framed this way, you can decide what your #1 goal is, then select that license.

Re:GPL & BSD- expanding body of work

[xoboots]

The GPL encourages expansion of the GPL body of work.
The BSD licence encourages use of the code by everyone.

That's an excellent way to put it, though I would rather put it as:

The GPL ensures expansion of the GPL body of work for everyone.
The BSD licence permits use of the code by anyone.

boggle

[ForsakenRegex]

Frankly, I find the entire GNU/GPL movement hypocritical. The only truly free software is that which has no license, copyright, or patent. All the GNU prattling makes it feel to me like a camp with the barbwire facing inward, armed border guards you can't bribe, and a little crazy dictator preaching his word to the masses. Don't worry though. I hear the kool-aid is free as well.

Re:boggle

[Anonymous Coward]

Bite this, troll:

Truly free software can't exist in a market economy that treats software as property. GNU implements a free market in which software can not be bought and traded like "real" property, but it has to use the existing copyright laws to do so, otherwise anyone could change a few lines and release non-free software. Remember, software is not Free if all you get is the binary, with no right to redistribute it.

Re:boggle

[Nimrangul]

What does the Free Software Foundation have to do with OpenBSD not liking stupid licenses?

OpenBSD doesn't like the GPL, it is infact replacing all the GPL code in the base system with BSD varients (diff, gzip, awk and others).

Your comment is out of place here, Apache being GPL incompatible had nothing to do with OpenBSD rejecting it, it was that the license is OpenBSD incompatible. Free as in free.

Re:boggle

[ForsakenRegex]

Free means without restriction. Using a tactic that employs a non-free aspect to advocate freedom is hypocrisy.

Re:boggle

[ForsakenRegex]

I hope you spent 4 other points on off topic mods then, because I was most certainly on topic for what was really being discussed at the time of the post.

Re:boggle

[Nimrangul]

Four other points, what are you referring to? I simply replied to you telling you that your comment about GPL people being hypocritical was stupid and had no relation to the OpenBSD people not liking the newest Apache license.

And what was being discussed? You were a reply to the story, therefore nothing was being discussed, you started a discussion by making a post that had no relevence to the article.

Re:boggle

[ForsakenRegex]

There were many posts about the GPL under that article. That constitutes a discussion, regardless of whether I responded directly to one or to the article. I assumed since you took the time to reply that you had moderated the post. Either way, if you want to get technical, your responses are as off topic as anything could be, since they only relate to a post you already branded off topic.

Re:boggle

[Nimrangul]

Indeed, I thought you may mean that in a later moment of clarity, however, one cannot moderate and post on the same article.

Re:boggle

[ForsakenRegex]

That's a good point.

No big deal...

[chrispyman]

The Apache 1.3 series really doesn't seem to get much development besides the usual bugfixes and security patches. The only reason people use it is because of either refusal to change to Apache 2 (if it ain't broke don't fix it) or because there's still some required module that only runs on Apache 1.3. On the other hand, I really never got why theres a webserver in the base OS in OpenBSD. As some other posters mentioned, the ports is where a webserver belongs IMHO.

Re:No big deal...

[ArbitraryConstant]

With the way it is, you pretty much have to put

httpd=""

in /etc/rc.conf.local and you've got a webserver. With something as complicated as Apache, it would be hard to make it as easy as that if it were a port. Also, I think it would be considered rude for a port to go around setting up stuff in /var.

They seem to like to be able to do just about all of the basics out of the box.

Re:No big deal...

[lewp]

I've always thought it was a good thing. Remember, the OpenBSD project doesn't worry about the security of the code in the ports tree like they do the base system.

Not every box needs Apache (nor BIND, which is also part of OpenBSD's base system), but lots of them do, and I'm glad that the project has made them first class citizens.

Yes, you can take this too far ("Lots of people need MySQL!"), but if the OpenBSD project has the manpower to audit a certain amount of code we should let them do it, and Apache is one of the best places to start I can think of.

Breaking it and named out into their own pieces (like they've done with XF4) might not be a bad idea, but it's not that big of a deal.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

I will soon be back. Teabaggers. !FP.

What you say is not accurate at all

[RedLaggedTeut]

Nearly everything you say is inaccurate.

This is false. Much like the BSD-licensed code, you may GPL'ed code for anything you wish.

Obviously, I can't simply rename GNU software, remove the license and sell it. I also cannot legally print the source into a big stack of paper and bash Bill through the windows with it.

So, if the app is just some random internal-use-only app ..

He didn't say it was internal use only. Also, in a business context, can you really make sure that it stays internal ? What if the company gets bought ? What if it splits up into small companies ? What if your app is so great you want to sell it ?

What you cannot do is to distribute GPL code without offering the same rights as you were given under the GPL.

I read this up under the GNU website yesterday, and they commented that you can't distribute the program either without offering the same rights.

And the original comment isn't fitting in all situations either:Well, if I understand the GPL accurately, you can't use a GPL lib without sharing your entire codebase. .

Well, if it is a "lib", then it is possible that the lib is available under the LGPL, and in this case your codebase stays yours and unburdened.

Now to add something myself, it it somewhat annoying that it is usually the GPL that gets used not the LGPL or the GNU Artistic License.
For example, if I have a snippet of code that is under GPL, and I don't change it and it is clearly separated and encapsulated in one file, then if I make a program that calls that code then I am supposed to make not only that code but the entire program available under the GPL.
Clearly that does not make that much sense; consider for example if I spend some more brains and effort I could place the GPL code snippet in a separate program, and call the code by the venerable systems exec command, and in this case I only have to make the wrapper I made for the GPLed code under the GPL.

This may be cool from a theoretic point of view, "free software", but it is difficult in practice.

In the Spirit of Open: No More Core

[unics]

And on today's news (doesn't this sound familiar????)....

[22 June 2004]

The Apache Software Foundation core team has voted to disband itself, effective 01 July 2004 in what is basically a minor internal restructuring, similiar in both spirit and action to last January when the devel list was opened up to the whole Apache HTTPD community instead of as previously just Apache HTTPD developers.

This dissolution made allot of sense as the core team was supposed to be distillation of the best and brightest that Apache HTTPD development had to offer. In reality, this vibrancy required constant checking, pruning and monitoring and as Apache HTTPD is a volunteer organisation of all this extra burden was taking away precious development time to perform worthless bureaucratic tasks.

Happily, the vast majority of core team members saw that the important architectural discussions were happening out there on the devel list and not behind closed doors on core, and so with a gift for the obvious, they voted to disband.

It is possible though, that Task Forces, ad hoc committees, will be setup in the future to fulfill certain goals, issues and technical problems that inevitably spring forth. There is precedent for such Task Forces in Apache HTTPD, as during the years of 1997-1999 there was one called a Design Team that was made up of many non-core technical personnel to create the all-important 2.0 modular architecture.

In the meantime, The Apache HTTPD Project and its still very active and cutting-edge developers are doing what they do best: developing, discussing and hanging out on the development list all for the purpose of fielding questions and getting ready for our 1.4 Release. While you are in the area, why don't you join them?

Comments, concerns, sighs and cheers about the dissolution can be made on Forum at Apache dot org; registration is not necessary. Hope to see you there.