Slashdot Mirror
Will GPLv3 Drive Users from Linux to FreeBSD?
An anonymous reader writes "Last week ZDNet put up an article asking a simple question: will GPL3 drive Linux users to FreeBSD? It's based on issues raised in the August FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter. That publication features a letter by the vice president of the FreeBSD Foundation, Justin Gibbs, arguing that the GPLv3 restricts the rights of commercial users of open source software, and is just the FSF's first step in changing the GPL in ways that authors of GPL software may not have intended. He suggests that commercial users should seriously consider BSD-licensed software as an alternative if they want to be able to safely ship products in the future. This is especially in light of requirements from the FCC that software running on devices (such as software-defined radios) be end-user replaceable. Gibbs states that the FreeBSD Foundation will provide an alternative to GPLv3'd software, especially in light of Stallman's statement that further GPL revisions are due in the near future. Is this likely to cause discontent among Linux users, or will they mostly ignore it?"
What Linux software is currently used that would be licensed for the purposes mentioned in the article which would go under the GPLv3? I can't think of any.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
The Linux kernel contains code from too many authors to change the license. The license which is applied to the current code does not include the license auto-upgrade clause, so anyone who wants to distribute the kernel under GPL v3 would have to ask all authors to relicense their code or remove/replace the code.
So I take it there's a BSD licensed fork of Samba out there, right?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Seeing how Linus doesn't plan to us GPLv3 for Linux, but rather stay with GPLv2, I'd have to say no.
More users and more developers would be a good thing.
But please, leave the attitude that i see too often in the linux world community. We don't need it on this side of the street.
( attitude is one reason i left the linux camp long ago. And i was there in the very beginning.)
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No. That was easy. Next troll post please dear editors.
Vice president of FreeBSD says FreeBSD is superior?
well i would never have guessed he thought that way
Let me be the one to answer that.... "NO".. It wont... :-)
So the FreeBSD folks want more attention, and they've decided to FUD the GPL to get it?
How is GPLv3 suppposed to prevent software from being end-user replaceable? If anything, TiVo showed that GPLv2 didn't even do that, and BSD licenses won't even try to stop TiVo-like antics.
Besides, Linux is staying with GPLv2, so nothing changed anyway. Nothing to see, please move along.
GPLv3 may have some contraversy around it, but some of those reasons stated seem like FUD to me. For instance, they mention that software is required by the FCC to be end-user replaceable in devices such as software driven radios. Last I checked one of the main purposes of GPLv3 was to allow end-user replacement of software. Isn't that why they changed parts of it, so that no tivoization happens again? That alone makes me want to ignore the rest of their reasons. If they can't get that simple part correct, most likely everything else is a load of bull.
"Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?"
Most users don't care about the license. Users give far more weight to driver support and performance than licensing details.
I don't know that people would switch to BSD because of a licensing issue. Most people use Linux as a client and probably don't care about the licenses. I don't see how BSD can keep up with the torrent of drivers coming out for Linux at this point. Sure, if there was a BSD that recognized my graphics card, sound card, and all my other goodies, I'd be up for it, but I'd hate to have to go back in time again just because of a licensing consideration. And then, what compiler would I use? Gee, GNU!!!!
This is my sig.
Hah, why would it?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
s/users/distributors/g
Will douchebags everywhere create apparent conflicts where there aren't any?
I like GPLv3. The thing that may drive me to FreeBSD is crap like Mono and AppArmor shipping by default with linux distros. I've long had a preference for BSD style inits.
For FreeBSD, the kernel is BSD liscenced but pretty much all the tools are a mix of BSD and GNU v2 or later (and all from the FSF are GPLv3 soon), which is "hello GPLv3" for a lot of what you care about.
For Linux, the kernel is GPLv2 only but pretty much all the tools are the same mix of BSD and GNU v2 or later (and all from the FSF are GPLv3 soon), which is "hello GPLv3" for a lot of what you care about.
Thus there is no way GPLv3 will drive people from Linux to BSD for business use, as it really is the same impact for both.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Short answer: no.
Why? Simple. The users of both GPLv3 and BSD licensed software really do not see a difference at all. They usually load the software in binary form and it does whatever it does in both cases. But the GPL vs. BSD differences affect mostly programmers and distributors, i.e. the provisions of the license control changes to and distribution of the software.
And in the case of programmers, nothing has really changed. Those who believe in the ideology behind GPL (ideology which was never hidden by RMS or FSF) will continue to do so, and are pleased with the direction in which v3 is headed. Those who loathe that idology in favour of another, BSD centered, which is just as ideologically motivated as the GPL, except covertly and implicitly, will continue to use BSD and bemoan the "evil" and "anti-profit" nature of the GPL.
What will change is that various large corporate leechers, who sought to abuse the GPL to their own ends, will see it harder to achieve their aims. They indeed might consider BSD ... or simply return to closed-source proprietary crud whence they came from in the first place.
The GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html goes on to say:
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. How can anyone use Linux in an embedded device and not open all of their code?--e
I just now got Ubuntu working fine with my wireless card. I'll be damned if I'm moving to another bloody OS after all that. :P
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
i do like FreeBSD, PCBSD & DesktopBSD, but PCBSD & DesktopBSD needs a feature during install to allow the person doing the install to allow selecting multiple mount points for / and /usr and /usr/home during the install, seems like with both PCBSD & DesktopBSD i could only select one partition to install everything in, i like to use a small / and a larger /usr and a /usr/home, as a long time slackware user i found FreeBSD's installer to be not much different and did allow selecting multiple mount points, i am looking forward to FreeBSD's next release (6.3? or 7?)
i welcome the competition the *BSDs will bring to the Linux world, and if Ian Murdock can get Solaris in the mix that will be good also...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been following this whole GPLv3 debate for a while, and I don't really see what the big deal about it is. I've read and I understand the differences between the three versions of the license, and I really don't see how that is going to really affect me. I've been using Red Hat/Fedora and Gentoo since 2000, and I can't think of a single instance of a software license ever really affecting me. Maybe its because I'm not a software developer, but does the regular user really care about any of this? I can't speak for everyone else, but I know I don't care. Maybe I just don't care about the politics of the whole thing, I have better things to do with my time. Am I going to jump ship on GNU/Linux because of an updated license? No. Would I ever? Probably not. Will this license ever affect me? Doubtful. Do I really care? No. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if you don't like GPLv3, then you don't have to use it. Problem solved, next FUD article.
I was visiting an academic CS research group, which is doing some networking protocol work they want widely adopted (eg, in Windows would be a good start).
Their release of the prototype code was "whatever", so they did it under GPL (well, dual liscence, GPL for everyone, and a free liscence for funders). They were kind of shocked when the link on their web page was now pointing to a GPLv3 description, and I explained the implications.
They may very well change to BSD liscencing.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Endless, will GPL3 this and will GPL3 that. Funny how the FUD merchants really hate GPL3. Methinks they protest too much.
I'm an OpenBSD fan myself, but mentioning anything BSD in any job interview has never done me good. Decision makers (aka, those that hire you), have perhaps heard from Linux, but most certainly not of BSD. So, by now if I mention free software at all, I mention Linux and nothing else at all. Saying GNU/Linux makes you look even worse.
Linux will stay, just by name recognition.... Hey, honestly, I only got to know the BSDs after I got into Linux and I do prefer the BSDs, just on technical merit.
If one uses a BSD license for SDR firmware, there isn't anything preventing someone from making small improvements to the source and locking it up from you for their companies devices.
If you or your company really prefers not to have the protections the GPL v3 provides, consider using GPL v2. While it doesn't provide the greater level of protection for the end-users rights, it at least ensures that you can get at any bug fixes / improvements to the software you wrote for any SDRs you can buy that use your software.
TFS says 'commercial users', which would be businesses. If I were a business, and the GPL looked like it might be starting to impact me, I'd definitely start looking at BSD, the license of which is known for how 'free' it is to the user, rather than the developer. So far, it hasn't started to do that to anyone but Tivo and other hardware manufacturers, but the moment it starts looking like just using the software for any commercial purpose will be a problem, you can bet there'll be a ton of companies jump ship.
Why would they stick around and try to fight it instead of just picking an already-existing alternative? At the moment Linux isn't scary (to a business) and it is more popular. But let the boss get wind of imminent problems with it, and he'll ORDER a switch. That switch may even be to Windows Server, as the liabilities and costs are well known.
This is a very very hypothetical situation, since it would be absolutely insane for the GPL to further limit the freedom of users/distributors (beyond the v3 limits)... But it's possible.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
"Wow, you must have thought about for a long time. The whole reason for the GPL3 is to stop companies like TiVO. "
Wow! Someone must have forgotten about the Google clause, which was latter taken out when it's downsides were pointed out. Today it's Google and Tivo. Who next, and doesn't your argument just reinforce what the newsletter's saying?
"Some people object to TiVO being able to base a product on Linux but then not let the Linux community pull it apart and play with it."
No, they objected to the fact that they couldn't run their mods on Tivo hardware. The source code has always been available. The GPL moved from being a software license to a hardware license.
For practical reasons, people often find they have to use Windows. There are a lot of practical people out there, trying to actually GET STUFF DONE, so they make choices based on need.
/bin, /usr, /etc, /usr/local and who knows where else that has pushed me away from most Linux distros towards using BogoLinux, PC-BSD, and MacOS X.
In a similar vein, it is frustration with the out-dated UNIX system of spreading bits of applications around inconsistent places in
Until Netcraft confirms it...
But seriously, a good deal of the health of the Linux community has been due to the GPL. It has also been the reason why companies are so fearful, yes, but once in, they generally end up doing the right thing because of the licensing terms.
There are no shortage of commercial products with their roots in a BSD. The problem is they most often don't bother to contribute work back. There is some mindshare that letting upstream maintain non-specific stuff for you is inherently better, but at the same time it takes effort to decide where that boundary is, and many companies don't bother. The BSD projects that have code contributed by companies back are largely in the context of using them under Linux, and as such they are already in the habit of doing that.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This seems like pure FUD and sour grapes from the BSD fans.
While manufacturers like Apple would have problems "closing" thier platforms, this is already an issue with GPL2 and most appliances manufacturers with such issues use BSD already like Apple.
Wasn't there a big thread on Slashdot last week on how to hack your iPhone? It seems to me that the majority of slashdotters are very much in favour of "user serviceable parts" in thier appliances.
I have actually some experience with certification issues and GPL licences having used the very wonderful JPOS point of sale application (for processing credit card payments). A Danish group went to the trouble of getting it officially certified to connect directly to the Danish banking/credit card network, the only problem being the certification program is for binaries (or JAR file in this case). So as its GPLed you get the source and are free to change the source to your hearts content. But if you want to abide by the terms and conditions of your contract with the payments system you must connect using only the certified JAR file as supplied.
In practise there was no problem really.
I used the source as the basis for a high volume test tool and my version never connected to the outside world.
Anyone actually connecting to a card payments system would be well advised to cover thier arse and use only
certified software as you could be liable for mega penalties if you break the network.
There was no conflict with the GPL2 license and I dont think there would be any confict with the GPL3 license
you have the source and are free to change it, a separate contract with you bank requires you to use only the certified
binary version, or, submit a binary of your modded version to thier extensive and expensive testing program.
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
Why would that happen? Just because of a license? Fat chance, with so many here probably stealing Windows, and finding convoluted reasons why it's OK to do so.
I think of Linux as a sort of gulag of distros where we keep you until you've been re-educated.
Why do you care were stuff is? Package managers take care of it all. If you're compiling from source and wasting your time, then you should know where and why you are doing what you are doing. Your post is pure ignorance or FUD.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Surprise!!!! Only software developers give a slimy rat's arse if the software is GPLv2, 3, 12, or 1000. NO ONE ELSE CARES.
Get over yourselves.
And for the love of all that is good and pure, don't ever post another GLPvwhaterver story on slashdot.
Not until the desktop-user experience improves drastically. Yes, FreeBSD can run KDE and GNOME, but anyone who tells you that maintaining FreeBSD is easier than, say, Ubuntu, is lying through their teeth. And yes, I have used both, and I enjoy using both. That doesn't mean I can't point out the flaws of one or the other, although I'm sure the BSD fanboys with karma will mod this down as far as they can.
I recall someone saying on here that those who hate M$ use Linux and those who love Linux use BSD. I don't know if there is any truth to that. I enjoy what M$, Linux, BSD and Mac all bring to the table.
The game.
"But the GPL vs. BSD differences affect mostly programmers and distributors, i.e. the provisions of the license control changes to and distribution of the software."
... or simply return to closed-source proprietary crud whence they came from in the first place."
I wouldn't say that those are the only ones who should or would care. Remember when Red Hat left out various codecs due to licenses?
"And in the case of programmers, nothing has really changed. Those who believe in the ideology behind GPL (ideology which was never hidden by RMS or FSF) will continue to do so, and are pleased with the direction in which v3 is headed. Those who loathe that idology in favour of another, BSD centered, which is just as ideologically motivated as the GPL, except covertly and implicitly, will continue to use BSD and bemoan the "evil" and "anti-profit" nature of the GPL."
Oh please! You must think your audience fools? The ideology for both is out there for everyone who cares to look. I'm more worried about the GPL because basically one person controls the license, while the BSD has the community. Something about absolute power and all that.
"What will change is that various large corporate leechers, who sought to abuse the GPL to their own ends, will see it harder to achieve their aims. They indeed might consider BSD
Abusers or not. I don't see how your argument is pro-GPL. If you want to build an ideological fence around yourself? Be my guest. Just don't complain that the world isn't dumping what works for them and using your solution. Or complaining that hardware makers aren't cooperating with the GPL community.
For all the poor commercial developers who can no longer reap a huge profit off of free open source software, and then defecate on the faces of the volunteers who made it possible.
The GPL is at an advantage.
First, GPLd projects can take BSD code, but not in reverse, so a GPL licensed project has a bigger resource pool to draw from.
Second, the GPL forces even very large companies to contribute their changes. While Theo is whining on the OpenBSD mailing list about how IBM (or whoever it was) won't give them the time of the day, Linux doesn't have such a problem. A BSD project can ask nicely, but can't demand anything.
Users aren't going to care what the license is, they'll go for the most functional system.
Even after all these years people eagerly line up to get screwed by Microsoft, so it's highly unlikely that something as tame as GPL v 3 is going to bring about a mass exodus from Linux.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Users care only a very little bit about the license. They want working software. Developers do care only a little bit since they cannot randomly mix & match code uder different licenses. GPL by definition gives them the most choice of source. Creators of disitibutions and hardware vendor (should) care a lot about the license. But they do not care about the freedom of the suers, they care about the number of copies they can distribute.
;)
The vice president of bsd foundation cares for hardware vendor, who want to restrict hardware, which he calls the users/ freebsd community. However that are not users you and me who buy/use the end result.
PS..
-- BSD is dead.
Has anyone noticed that the GPLv3 went through very, very quietly?
No one congratulated the FSF.
Despite Bruce Perens' predictions, Linus has not been forced to "go with the crowd"
The GPLv3 is a stark reminder of why you should never, ever assign your code to FSF.
We need a new license -- the Linux license -- that has GPLv2 features and perhaps the patent provision but not the anti-tivoization clause. That clause has limited GPL software to hobbyist applications and web serving. There's no way you'd propose GPLv3 software for a gas pump or an Airbus at this point.
The point, I guess, is that GPLv3 is too expensive -- it asks for more than money, more than code -- it tries to dictate engineering. And that is just sad. The problem is that the FSF has a culture very similar to a student council, with roughly the same level of maturity. Those with a contrarian view are shouted down and driven out, so that the only remaining talk is just preaching to the choir.
Sadly, this will slow down open source. Just because people aren't being vocal about it doesn't mean they're for it. In business, when the other side is quiet, it means they're planning to go with a second supplier so they don't have to put up with crap.
Anyone who beleives in the ideology behind the GNU project would have no problems at all adopting the GPLv3. It adds additional copyleft restrictions to promote the freedom to hack - in addition to making a few important clarifications. If you feel uneasy with GPLv3, ask yourself if your ideals match those of the GNU project. If they don't, there are other copyleft and non-copyleft licenses available - including the BSD licence.
I don't think majority of users (non-developers) actually care about any of that, as long as it is free as in "free beer". FreeBSD or any other BSD or other OSS-but-not-GPL software could potentially be as successful as GPL software, but they lack funding, because they are not usable as weapons (fences, obstacles or mines, actually) in ongoing corporate wars. At best their worth is as additional development shops, but unfortunately you cannot keep to yourself what you payed for and your competition can use it without limitations. However, with GPL FOSS, you can target and hurt others' profits, or divert some of it to your own pockets, emphasizing some part of computer systems you have in check yourself.
The Law of Unintended Consequences paradoxically makes GPL (some) Big Corporations' best friend, just like hypothetical synthetic rubber manufacturer would probably covertly support a Maoist guerrilla group in a tropical republic whose main export product is natural rubber latex.
What amazes me to no end is that Linux kernel has upper hand over BSD even in single-CPU embedded devices where BSD would clearly be a less burdening choice. E.g. why TiVo chose Linux over BSD and got all this unneeded attention and bad rep? I guess they just drifted with flow...
The only GNU tools in any of the BSDs are the compiler toolchain. None of the standard unix utilities are the GNU versions like they are in most (all?) linux distros. Everything from ls, to grep to diff/patch to inetd is BSD licensed in the BSDs.
When commercial entities are participating in open source develpoment of a project, the GPL can be an advantage, since it protects them against a competitor using their work to create a propietary competing project.
BSD is better for companies when they don't want to share changes at all.
When solely looking at the user market then I doubt that the new GPL will have the impact which is implied here. Instead I think its more a matter of how people interpret it and will apply it to their products. When looking at that I think that a classic example can be seen in the way Debian handles things in their software repository.
I'm not judging them but I can tell you that it drove me, solely from the end-user aspect, straight into Ubuntu. I like Debian a lot, at work we run it on most web and sql servers. Apart from some left-over Gentoo installations setup by a previous admin (which, as a side note, will also been soon moved to Debian) everything is Debian based. Its strict with its policies, its got a very good package system and in the overal has a rather logical approach with things.
The only serious complaints which I've had about Debian so far (from the perspective of my profession as sysadmin) are the sometimes silly changes some package maintainers make. Like, for example, splitting up a config file (conf.d) but not using the already defined sections by the author but instead re-inventing the whole wheel again. The result is obvious; if you know how the particular software works you probably won't feel direct at home on Debian. But all of that sillyness is relatively easily fixed with the use of the sourcecode packages.
But when it comes to the enduser issues I really can't say that I like what I see. It doesn't offer thunderbird and firefox because someone considered it in violation with some policies. But since they still want to ship this stuff its suddenly called iceweasel and whatchamacallit and even behave differently from the real thing. As an enduser I'm pretty easy with that: you can stuff that sillyness up your policy interpretations while I move over to Ubuntu to get the best out of Debian without all that silly policy stuff which I really do not need as an end-user
So personally I don't think gpl3 will make any more difference here. And I sincerely doubt it will have the same impact as some of the Debian choices have made.
Seriously, I would never consider accepting a job somewhere that considers knowing about open source to be a bad thing. I've had 3 jobs (as a network/sysadmin) over the last 10 years. For all 3 of them linux, BSDs, postgresql, apache and several other open source projects were discussed during the interview. 2 of those jobs I got specifically because I know BSDs as well as linux, windows and cisco. All of those jobs have used at least OpenBSD, two of them also used FreeBSD. If you want a good job, mentioning open source software is going to help, not hurt. If you want a shitty job, try being a plumber, it pays well.
I agree in that commercial users should use BSD. GPL software is Free and should stay Free. Leaches are not welcome to use GPL software. Simple as that. If some leaches were using GPL software under the false impression that they can do as they want without contributing back to the community, then they should wizen up and leave. We don't need leaches.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I just last week switched my home server from FreeBSD to Debian... mainly just to learn something new, and get some hands-on experience. I last tried any Linux flavor about 7 years ago, and have been on FreeBSD since then, so I figured I'd try something else.
In any case, I really don't care about licensing as a user. As a developer, I'd prefer the BSD license, but that doesn't mean I care what my OS and other programs are licensed under... I just want something that works.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
You're so right! We should be more innovative like Microsoft and just dump everything under C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.
Why are you so worried about where everything's installed anyway? I don't see how you "GET STUFF DONE" if you're so caught up with that kind of thing.
The vast majority of Linux users simply don't give a crap about the license beyond the question of whether or not it is free for them to download and install. And why would anyone move to FreeBSD to get away from the GPL license anyway? Probably about 80% of your average FreeBSD desktop is GPL'd or some other non-BSD license. FreeBSD itself is actually a relatively small core of software. Almost everything of use to a user on a *BSD system comes from ports... not the FreeBSD installation.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I want to use stuff created by others, but not share....wah wah wah....GPL is evil...wah wah wah
Share should only be a one way street if I want it that way....wah wah wah
FUD
BSD is less restrictive, sure, by the simple fact that is has fewer restrictions. Stallman only would argue that GPL is "More free", and by his definition of "free" he is correct (although that is a somewhat meaningless statement...)
Presumably, there might be some Linux fanboys out there who buy a device primarily because 'it runs Linux', but I think most people buy a device based on how useful it is (which may or may not be related to it running Linux!). This even applies to hackers, who'll buy a device based on how open it is, or how functional the hardware is compared with its price.
I think this is correct. Much as I'd like it if the FCC did require the software in SDRs to be user-replaceable, in reality I think they want the opposite. They want to eliminate the ability for users to tinker with anything, and that's exactly what the GPL is designed to protect.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I guess no one if they wanted to could write a Samba-like app for BSD? And please refrain from the juvenile "well if you think it is so easy, you do it" kind of crap. The point is, if someone wants to, they can. Complacency and pride has killed more than one software project/product. Ask Novell and maybe Corel about that.
Really, the only reason Linux/GNU software is where it is at today is because of commercial software and hardware companies. You can wear rose coloured glasses and talk 'lovey-dovey' about the hoards of volunteers, but Linus himself would have to work on predominantly 'commercial' software projects if his employer didn't think it was in their interest to have him work on kernel projects. The much vaunted open source alternative to MS Office is financed mostly by Sun and other companies. Even Ubuntu, everyone's darling of Linux distros right now would be nothing if commercial money weren't behind it to help in its financing. Shuttleworth wouldn't be able to keep the thing financed for a long time if he didn't form a company to provide commercial support options to it. Ubuntu wouldn't have the look and direction without him. And we have all seen how well he fits in with Stallman's thinking vis a vie mp3 support etc. and all the other GPL purists out there.
As much as the idealogues don't want to admit, people need to put food on the table and to pay the rent. Much (not all) of the most useful contributions to Linux/Gnu wouldn't be possible without commercial companies paying people to create the code for it. E.g. Sun, IBM, Redhat, Novell, and scores of others. Look at all the promising software projects that have died out because the original and most inspired stakeholders/developers have eventually realized that they have to spend their time elsewhere to have a family life as well as to make a living. The database tool Tora is a good example (the latest release is a year and a half old). If you can't program for your Linux/Gnu project during working hours you have to do it during 'non-working hours'... and you can't have a life outside that since it is time consuming. Most people want a 'life' and a family. The Linux/Gnu project is then tossed aside (maybe not happily, but it is still tossed)... Except if you are paid to do it during the daytime by the 'evil' commercial companies. Yes, the projects are open source. But the only ones that don't eventually die are the ones that companies help pay people to continue.
Stallman has hinted that there are more changes to GPL coming. Times have changed, and people playing with this license should be careful not to bite the hand that feeds GNU/Linux. Apple has shown that it is very possible to make some very good things from BSD.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
But if the BSD organizations make a serious attempt to re-implement GPL3 apps with BSD licenses, and the Linux organizations stick with GPL3, then I'll switch to BSD and away from Linux (used since 1995 ...).
The BSD license is my idea of free software. But that's just me; as they say, ymmv.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
You act like bsd is comparable to linux for the average end user. It's not. Ok...so say I wanted to run BSD instead of linux. Can I pop in an install dvd, have all of my hardware recognized and configured, and be dropped into kde or gnome, depending on what I chose?
Do I have nice programs available from the default install like SuSE or Fedora give me...so I don't have to use the command line and can take care of my machine from the GUI?
Your average non-geek user doesn't want to spend a large portion of his time using his computer working with config files trying to get things working right. They just want it to work. The free BSDs lose those people to Mac OS or linux.....not the other way around, no matter what developer issues are out there. You have to remember, the average user is not a developer.
Yes, the GPL (all versions) restrict certain of the user's rights. Specifically, they restrict the right of a user to restrict other user's rights under the GPL. If I grant you through the GPL a right to modify and distribute my code and you include my code in your product, the GPL takes away your right to not grant the same rights to my code to recipients of your product that I granted you. Yes, this makes life hard for commercial users. They can't benefit from my code and then turn around and deny those same benefits to their own users. This is what I intended, and why I chose the GPL. I'm not going to choose the BSD license specifically because it doesn't restrict recipients' rights in that specific way. Part of the payment I get is "pay it forward": you benefit from my work, you "pay" for that in part by letting others benefit from your work in turn. And I'd note that commercial users who don't want to pay in kind like that have an option: go to the original creator and negotiate a license just like they would with any commercial software. They'll probably have to pay in some other form, but that's hardly unexpected.
I seriously doubt many creators of GPL'd software will move to a BSD license. If they were inclined that way they wouldn't have chosen the GPL in the first place, they'd've gone with a BSD license from the start.
I'm not the author of the parent comment....
... thanks
I'm just a curious bystander who doesn't understand why the parent moderated "troll"
You're half-right. Most users don't care about licenses. Most users who even think about licenses don't care about the differences between the BSDL, GPL2, GPL3, or even some random shareware license that lets them use a program for 30 days before they start getting nag dialogs... there's basically two licenses, ones they have to pay money for, and those they don't.
/usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/contrib, and there's no GPL code in the kernel.
Hell, a lot of *developers* don't care about licenses, and release their code using whatever license they run across first.
On the other hand, "Probably about 80% of your average FreeBSD desktop is GPL'd or some other non-BSD license." is misleading. You could build a Debian GNU/BSD and it would still have a BSD kernel, even if virtually all the userland was GPL. What FreeBSD gets you isn't a GPL-free system... heck, even Microsoft's shipped GPLed software on occasion... what it gets you is a system that doesn't need to be GPLed as a whole. The GPL components are roped off in
On the gripping hand, no, this won't drive "the vast majority of Linux users" from Linux to BSD. But the article wasn't about end-users, it was about companies that use Linux in their embedded systems, in set-top boxes and routers and mysterious gray boxes on street corners. These are the "users" Justin was writing about. And this is something that the FSF should be concerned about: the GPL has been used to extract the source code to a number of embedded systems, and the GPL3 is an attempt to bring more systems into the fold. But if companies making embedded systems switch from Linux to BSD it could end up having the opposite effect.
Has anything else ever driven anyone to FreeBSD? For every dozen people I know who use some form of Linux, I know zero people who use FreeBSD. If Linux were completely vaporized overnight, more people would switch to MacOS or Windows than to FreeBSD.
What you're saying is wrong, wrong, wrong!
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#ReallyFree
I agree, if it's heavy metals we're talking about, we don't need any "leaching." But I think asking people to "wizen" up is a little drastic.
My understanding of the GPL is this: if I want a program's source code to be freely available as well as any modifications to said source, I use the GPL. People are not allowed to extend my stuff without GPLing the result. They also cannot include it in their projects without GPLing the whole thing. Thats all I understand about it.
Now, GPL 2 vs. GPL 3: what exactly changes from a programmer's point of view? Googling this is hopeless, its full of blogs FUDing around, and I dont think the FSF is an unbiased source. So, anyone here with a clue?
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
"Can I pop in an install dvd, have all of my hardware recognized and configured, and be dropped into kde or gnome, depending on what I chose?"
As a matter of fact, yes you can. See: PC-BSD
"Do I have nice programs available from the default install like SuSE or Fedora give me...so I don't have to use the command line and can take care of my machine from the GUI?"
Why, yes you do. The exact same programs, in fact.
"Your average non-geek user doesn't want to spend a large portion of his time using his computer working with config files trying to get things working right. They just want it to work. "
This is usually the argument that is used when people talk about Linux. Who wants to spend hours editing conf files, build and rebuilding the kernel, etc.? It's awesome to see that Linux has crossed that threshold!
What a bunch of FUD. This is what I'd expect from Microsoft or similar. It's already clear that the Linux kernel cannot ever adopt any new license, and it the keystone for all Linux distributions. Many, many other projects have already said they will not adopt the GPLv3. I am sure that many Linux distributions will be wary of it as well, making it very prominent wherever a package is provided with said license. ("warning: module rmsgnu.o taints the kernel").
It's a shame to see such FUD perpetrated under the BSD banner, when there is actually so much more that the communities of Linux and BSD have in common than that which separates them. The only thing I have as bad is this is that NetBSD spinoff company that promotes their own embedded BSD version (Wasabi).
The point is that they don't get to take our code, not that we prevent them from making the product in the first place.
Read my signature.
Of course, part of the point is the hope that sometimes, companies will actually decide it's worth it to go GPL simply to use GPL'd libraries. And I believe this has happened.
Regarding GCC, I'm not sure how it could be a problem. At least for now, GCC explicitly allows you to compile programs with it that are not necessarily released under the GPL, even though GCC itself is GPL'd. This is true of just about any F/OSS programming language/environment.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
One thing (perhaps the only thing?) Linus got right is using the GPL.
The end-user needs the ability to get bugs fixed. If the manufacturer
refuses to fix a bug, the end-user needs the source code to be able to
fix the bug. Closed source products are simply unacceptable.
One constantly reads the argument that the BSD license is better than
the GPL for commercial interests because it lets them create closed
source products. If so, then explain why Linux gets so much more
commercial use and support than the BSDs?
The reason to use BSD (whether FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD) rather
than Linux is not because of the license. The reason to use BSD
rather than Linux is because BSD works better than Linux. BSD
is a mature operating system written by people that care about
quality. Linux is, even after all these years, and all the
thousands of eyeballs looking at it, not ready for prime time.
Not even close. Linux is getting better, but very slowly. At the
rate improvement is happening, I expect it to take several decades
longer before Linux is good enough.
When the actual copyright holders will bother to sue.
Other than the German network code author - the GNU/Linux community has a history of being all-talk-no-walk to the courthouse and file types.
...patent trolls, DRM pushers or tivoizers are any big contributors of GPL code. Perhaps some will go proprietary, perhaps some will grab what they can from BSD or the last GPLv2 versions, but I don't think you'll get any serious contributions to BSD. Here's the brief options:
1) Spend money developing a proprietary branch and earn money exclusively selling/supporting that product
2) Spend money developing code you'll give away, then try to make it back on support with competition
3) Forego the business altogether
Given the choice, I think any business would choose 1) every day. Think IBM wanted to give away all that code instead of creating a proprietary Linux? Think Red Hat wouldn't love to kill off CentOS? They didn't choose to release that code, the GPL left them either that or not at all. Ask Theo how much support he's gotten writing OpenSSH some day, code or money.
Users want to contribute to GPL software because they're improving their own software, businesses because they have to. The GPLv3 is pushing the balance more in direction of users, less of some businesses. But I don't think they'll contribute anything because you had to drag them to do it kicking and screaming in the first place. Maybe they contribute a pittance to low-level systems but that's like sending something upstream to a vendor "Hey we got this bug/limitation in your component causing trouble for us, care to fix it?" and only based in self-interest.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not on your life would I ever pick a BSD license over any version of the GPL.
What user cares what license any of it runs under?
Got Code?
The answer to all questions is Yes, No and Who Cares.
YES:
The GPL3 will drive Tivo type producers away from GPL3 code and thus drive Tivo type users away from GPL3 code.
NO:
Most users are completely ignorant about the existence of GPL3.
WHO CARES:
Companies in countries without strong copyright laws will use whatever suits their interests.
So there you have it. Next week we'll be showing how the answers to "Does a bear shiet in the woods" and "Does the Pope wear a funny hat" are both Yes, No and Who Cares.
Licence Linux under BSD.
Mohahah!
If I were driven to BSD ... GPLv3 itself won't, but it might for my customers ... it would be NetBSD. The reason is the wider support for a variety of embedded and small system architectures.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
And taking it further, putting code in the public domain is less restrictive than the BSD license. What's your point?
Nobody would argue that GPL is less restrictive than BSD. The entire point of GPL is to be more restrictive than BSD, where anybody can nab your code, modify it, repackage it and sell it, and not give you back the improvements to your own code.
If the latter situation doesn't bother you, then you should use BSD. If it does, you should use GPL.
The computing industries are too dependent on a single compiler code base at this point. The sooner we get some significant divergence the better.
Unless FreeBSD can run the latest VMware Workstation and NVidia offers full up-to-date FreeBSD driver support then I'll be sticking with Linux.
This is occurring -- see LLVM and LLVM-GCC. Several corporations are contributing to LLVM -- including Apple
The open source iPhone development tools currently use LLVM with the GCC front-end. In this case, the gcc driver is used to interface with LLVM, and output LLVM byte-code. LLVM handles the assembly/linking of this byte code as a native executable. The GCC driver simply provides a fully GCC-compatible front-end -- it can (and has been) forked from GPLv2 licensed gcc, and in theory, could be maintained in perpetuity as a fork -- or potentially replaced outright.
http://plausible.coop
... BSD was dead....
Anything can be more "free" "only for certain values of free".
This one isn't even that.
FCC requires that software be end-user replaceable. Tivo, and some other companies using GPLv2 code have been doing precisely the opposite.
One of the more prominent things that GPLv3 does is to force companies to make their software end-user replaceable (the anti-Tivoization clause). And this *BSD "genius" thinks that that is somehow going to contravene FCC's requirement ?
What is next ? "People should move away from implementing neighborhood watch programs because they might contravene / impede the application of laws against sexual predators targeting kids" ?
Was the slashdot editor high at the time when he / she let it through ? Or was he just a frustrated *BSD distributor ?
The Microsoft FUD machine is working at full capacity this week, isn't it?
I'm surprised that slashdot falls for it over and over again. We all know that ZDnet needs the ad revenue.
As I ignored GPLv2
And the Apache and BSD license!
I ignore ALL licenses.
If I make changes to code I very rarely release them to anybody, and then only if I'm collaborating with a developer (then compliance and code inclusion is theirs to decide).
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
I don't know about spiffy, but it would be a license violation.
how to invest, a novice's guide
Here's a simple analogy to clarify the argument. The complaints of FreeBSD people about the GPL are like slave-owners complaining to abolitionists: "You're not really a supporter of freedom because you're trying to take away my freedom to own slaves!"
People might dismiss this as an inadequate analogy, saying that free software is not as important as human liberty. However, I would argue that a lot of these people are not considering the long-term importance of free software. As our world becomes enmeshed with software, the right to free software will merge indistinguisably with the more general rights of intellectual inquiry and the free exchange of ideas.
A lot of the freedoms that we now take for granted, such as free speech and the right to vote, were not respected as rights in the past (and not even considered as necessary by some!). These rights only came into being after they were proposed and vigorously defended by truly enlightened visionaries, not just by people interested in immediate, short-term practical benefits.
mhack
Building a better ribosome since 1997
It would also be impossible. Last time I checked, the copyrights of GCC are held by the FSF. They'll hardly allow a fork under a BSD license.
If you want a BSD licensed compiler, you'll have to write one yourself.
I can't. I've already switched to Solaris...
It's not [directly] the GPL that's causing me to eventually give FreeBSD a go instead of Debian on my servers - it's FreeBSD's [in-progress] support for ZFS. There might be an awful lot of hype about it, but ZFS seems like a really nice thing for a homebrew SAN.
Of course, licensing issues are the reason why ZFS won't be in the Linux kernel anytime soon.
ZFS on FUSE - and, indeed, FUSE in general - is neat, but not something I'd want to rely upon in a server environment.
--- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
That all really.
FreeBSD GUI/desktop is really lacking. So much so, that I used freebsd all the time, but just stick to command lines,
then use Ubuntu as my desktop.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
The BSD people have been beating this drum for over 10 years now. 'More Free' 'soon be massive defections from Linux'. Failure of these prophecies doesn't seem to deter these people from repeating them. Don't they ever learn?
Ever since Linux passed up the BSD's in popularity, we've been hearing this. It's not new, just another excuse to say it again.
If it hasn't happened in the last 12 years, it'll never happen.
Why do they still report this garbage?
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Being a long time professional Linux and Open Source guy, I am SO tired of Richard Stallman and his "take my football and go home" politics. The GPL wasn't broken in GPL 2 according to many, yet bring the MS / Novell deal along, and all of a sudden, we need to alter GPL 3 to make it unfriendly to the Linux community. I'd say that's a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" reaction.
I don't know if it will drive people to FreeBSD for the license, but I know I'm going to start downloading it right now.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
In a similar vein, it is frustration with the out-dated UNIX system of spreading bits of applications around inconsistent places in /bin, /usr, /etc, /usr/local and who knows where else that has pushed me away from most Linux distros towards using BogoLinux, PC-BSD, and MacOS X.
As others have pointed out, with package management systems available, this makes no difference to usability.
More to the point, just because you don't understand the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, don't knock it. Contrary to your beliefs, it's not just some disorganised relic of past Unix. It is designed to allow system files with different characteristics to be separated from each other so they can be spread across different filesystems and mounted in different ways. This is very useful for things like network booting, backup plans and security models.
If they want improvements to be donated back, keeping the system as a whole unified, then GPL is the proper choice. If they just want it out there, and don't care that someone else (or several someones) will soon own it, locking them out, then BSD might be the best choice.
The differences between GPL2 and GPL3 are minor. They should pick the license based on what results they want.
They can even dual liscense, with both a BSD and a GPL trunk. That way, they can see which one works best for them.
BSD licensing is for forking. In this case, the group really doesn't want to continue being bothered with the work. BSD/MIT is probably the best choice.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
I can give references for everything in the preceding paragraph, btw.
Sorry, jumped the gun to soon, you said "software" and not "OS". In that regard you are probably right.
No it won't...
Bah, humbug. Why, I'd have to do something nearly as hard as... making a functional clone of unix from scratch. Those bastards! Somebody call Theo.
Because it seems like a total waste and a potential point of failure to have a package manager when a better system design would eliminate the need for it entirely. Seems straight forward to me. It's always a win if you can make a system simpler, more reliable, and more intuitive all in one fell swoop.
You should consider studying a bit of cognitive engineering.
OK, how about a GCC fork that only compiles C, and has a GPLv2 license?
It would be even better if it printed out abuse whenever somebody tried to compile C++. You know, like sudo's insult mode.
Some ways were found to get around the intent of GPLv2 without violating the letter of it; version 3 attempts to close those loopholes. For example, where version 2 said that you had to distribute the modified source along with your binaries to allow the recipient to modify the software, version 3 adds that you cannot try to get around that by putting in a hardware check to prevent running those modified versions. Think of GPLv3 as a bugfix update to v2.
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
Linux is like FreeBSD with a dose of Microsoft. That is to say, it's freeBSD with about 2GB of bullshit sprinkled in every corner of the bloated hog.
GCC's language front-ends are just that. Front-ends. Their development affects the back-end only insofar as it must be improved to resolve limitations and problems discovered by the front-ends. Deleting the various front-ends would not change the back-end or the C or C++ front-ends (assuming those are the languages that you consider core) at all.
If you feel that support of multiple languages somehow hurts GCC, then I welcome you to fork it and see how it works out.
Your statement, right there, is the majority of the problem with GPLv3. The GPL was never intended to attack specific companies, but now all the radical elements of the open source movement have gained control. With GPLv3, the entire intent was to attack commercial and business interests, and to further force FOSS-only upon users of Teh Lunix.
Their goal is to become a monopoly in the mold of Apple: whereas Apple has a brutal lock upon all things Apple, FOSSies are seeking to have a brutal monopoly upon all things Lunix, and then to continue expanding (via the GPL), into every other application until nobody will be able to make money from software except for IBM and Sun. And those two will be laughing at the FOSS zealots all the way to the bank, thanking them for being good little sheep (and unpaid sheep at that).
As we see, time and time again, FOSSies proclaim their aims being "all about choice"... but then we see their real aims when people DARE to choose Microsoft. It isn't about choice, it's about dictating what choices you have. Years and years have proven they can't compete in either the marketplace OR the marketplace of ideas, so rather than trying to beat Microsoft via quality software, instead they are attempting to remove competition from Microsoft via litigation. And the GPLv3 is the cornerstone of the FOSSie's coup attempt on the software industry.
Try to imagine a world in which ALL software HAS to be FOSS. It's an Orwellian nightmare: nobody is going to program, since there is no money in it... and those who do are essentially slave labor. Either that... or it's going to force programming into the realm of high-paid consulting services, and the only companies who can afford programmers are the mega-corporations who can afford to hire their own staff of programmers... which will be protected from FOSS "corruption" via a rigorous review process, lest the organization be forced to forfeit all the investments they made into their own, custom and (due to legal and IP requirements) proprietary, software.
And ALL software which does not fit that mold will have to comply to the whims of the FOSSies. It will be like the Republican party took over the software industry: a hell created in the mold of Nazi Germany.
"Once you hit 12TB, RAID5 becomes useless because chance of unrecoverable read error approaches guaranteed"
I keep reading random things about a max size you want for raid 5 because of the chance for errors. But I can't find anywhere with any authority on it, nor can I find what limit one should place on raid.
one of the things I read states what you state http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=162
Is there a place I can get more information? I got 4 320g HD's, and I want to replace it soon with 500-1t drives.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
... you know, continue using the GPLv2 for your software. Nobody is forcing anybody to use the GPLv3.
Much ado about nothing. Come on, be a little more creative with your FUD.
There is: cc
It's what FreeBSD (and afaik the other BSDs) use. GCC is available in ports (and is a dependancy of some ports) but isn't part of the base system.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
You might like clang from the LLVM project.
how to invest, a novice's guide
All most users care about is "free" as in "free beer". Few understand are have read any license.
The GPL3 says you can't interfere with the object code. It doesn't say you have to provide every piece to get the *same functionality.*
So, if you require that the firmware be upgraded as a unit, who says you have to give a different vm that *actually* talks to the [insert hardware component here]. The object code can run all it wants, but there is nothing to talk to.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'd been interested in FreeBSD for some time, and then one morning, a routine upgrade of Debian left my system dead in the water. In a fit of ideological license purity, someone pulled a critical package out of unstable. I don't believe it was libc, but it was something upon which just about everything else depended.
At that point, FreeBSD was able to successfully use my hardware, and it stayed there. I'm currently using license on the home machines again, but only because flash9 on FreeBSD can't handle some of the kids websites.
Oh, and as for another question on autodetecting hardware--since the incident above (1997?), I've had somewhat better luck with FreeBSD than linux in detecting and automatically configuring hardware. Linux has generally had more of the absolute bleeding edge, where FreeBSD has had broader coverage of "recent".
hawk
The difference in opinion over BSD and GPL is not about who gets rich; it's about their idea of what's free.
What is the point of this comment? BSD and Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux) both did that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Refering to it as the "BitKeeper fiasco" merely serves to reveal your biases. At the time Linus chose to adopt BitKeeper, Linus had become a choke point on patch integration. He claimed the use of BitKeeper greatly improved his efficiency and coordination.
As I understand it, a lot of work was going on behind the scenes in parallel with the adoption of BitKeeper to improve the social dynamics of patch flow among the kernel hacker cabal. Yes, there was a loud and sustained polemical outcry, but show me solid evidence that kernel evolution, growth, maturity, or stability was compromised during this period as a result of all that background noise. Background noise is a fact of life in most open source projects.
When McVoy finally did have his predicted rug-pulling two-year-old temper tantrum, Linus had come to a good understanding of exactly what he needed in a collaborative source code control system and git was not long in arriving. Would it have been possible to implement git correctly three years earlier without the basis of that experience? Would the social systems have been ready for it? These are important questions the BitKeeper yowlers are rarely seen to seriously consider.
What fiasco? Perhaps tempest in a teapot is a better description. If a crappy SCM had been adopted instead of BitKeeper, Linux would have had two camps of yowlers: the hardest working cogs at the center whose work process integrating patches was poorly supported, and the peripheral yowlers with nothing better to do than posit social conspiracy theories about why their patch submissions were so consistently falling through the cracks. Without BitKeeper, Linus insists that less code would have been integrated.
I'll agree with fiasco if you can explain how having two camps of yowlers is better than one. At roughly the same point in time we had the Debian non-fiasco, where all potential yowlers were given their due, and nothing was released for three years. But thank the gods they weren't using BitKeeper. That would have been a real fiasco. Yes certainly, score -1 for Linus foresight, and +1 for Debian foresight on the basis of yowler management, rather than progress achieved.
Commercial or not, the restrictions in the GPL only affect those who distribute to third parties.
I respect the contributions that Richard Stallman has made. Really I do. But please consider the following quotes:
Stallman proclaimed that "the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity."
The Linux desktop (and I will call it Linux as opposed to GNU/Linux, because we don't append the name of every software package installed to placate anyone's ego, but rather call the desktop by the one name that unifies all Linux desktops, the kernel. Beyond that, many of us are running very different software packages) has proven that volunteer communities can produce some great software for free, but the vast majority of software in the world still comes from the commercial sector. And I have this crazy idea that a person deserves the right to paid for their work.
If commercial software didn't exist, and programming wasn't a valid career field, then far fewer people would learn it in the first place, further decreasing the free software market. And last time I checked, several of the main programmers who develop GNU software, are paid to do so by companies who charge money for software, like Novell.
Here is the kicker. From Richard Stallman:
"I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement."
He once spoke of how all software should be completely free, with no restrictions, yet his licenses have become more complicated, and more restricted.
Will the GPLv3 drive me away from Linux? Only if it becomes the prevailing license across most Linux software and the kernel. Certain programs like Samba that went GPLv3 will likely have a GPLv2 fork. However, I do believe that GPLv3 is approaching hypocrisy and lunacy. If the trend continues, I very much will consider moving to BSD.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I for one am certainly switching to BSD, which doesn't do half what Ubuntu currently does, and doesn't have the UPGRADED and improved license. As a matter of fact, I'm going to skip BSD and just go ahead and install some other arcane proprietary OS. Maybe TRS-DOS or re-hook up my sinclair. I mean, why bother with compiz-fusion, rhythmbox, ooo, gimp, pidgin, tvtime, firefox, and thunderbird? I don't want free and stable often updated software. I want some arcane bullshit that might get co-opted and corrupted by some corporation. Fuck the GPL v3!!! FREEDOM NAZIS!!!!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"If you own the TiVO box, then they should not be permitted to restrict you in any way, even if it means you can brick the device or break the law."
Well since I OWN the hardware. I should be able to make copies of it and sell bootleg Tivo's on the blackmarket.
"I don't understand why this is such a hard concept."
Apparently "scope" evades you.
I'm not going to mess around and say i really know what's going on with this subject or it's implications, but "welcome to FreeBSD" my friends!
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
Really, this only has application to companies in the business of selling devices with embedded Linux and to distribution providers. It really doesn't hit the end user, as they don't participate in the act of "distribution" that the GPL restricts. Oh - as I am wont to say, the BSD license is "libertarian" in its general outlook whereas the GPL is "socialist" in its outlook, and of course proprietary EULAs are almost exclusively "fascist" in theirs.
There really isn't much of a point to spending a lot of time to lock people out of using BSDL code. The code is free and if you are competing with free you have already lost. The key for a BSDL project is to understand that and to make the most of it. You can drive *way* up the asshat's costs while improving your own value. Eventually you can force them to go their own way or give back. It isn't rocket science.
I could see using the GPL2. If I built a large project, I would probably choose the BSDL though because I am now more comfortable with that license. However, it would take a serious and existential threat to the project for me to go to the GPL3.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm not even sure if Linus Thorvalds has already OK'ed a move to GPLv3. As far as I know, (GNU/)Linux is still released under GPLv2, and there has been no indication that that is going to change anytime soon. Unless I've missed a report on Slashdot on how Linus suddenly thought that the GPLv3 was the bee's knees.
As far as I'm concerned this is a misguided post. Someone heard a bell toll, but have no idea where the clapper is hanging.
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Really? I don't have a BSD system handy, but I thought their cc was just a link to gcc. Hmm... I don't see a separate cc on the FreeBSD doc site but that doesn't necessarily prove anything.
:)
HP-UX ships three compilers - the K&R compiler that they need to compile their crusty old kernel code, the GNU gcc (so they can build stuff like perl or gawk easily) and their expensive flagship HP C Compiler.
I was under the impression that all the free OSes were dependent on gcc... but I'd love to be wrong!
On the other claw, you can't really blame a hammer for bad carpentry.
Don't you love how a totally whack comment on slashdot can provoke informative, insightful responses? (Unfortunately it works the other way too.)
Too bad Marshall couldn't have ended that sentence with "and FreeBSD is now the most popular free alternative OS available," because it isn't. Go to #freebsd and ask anyone about when there will be better support for desktop users and you'll get laughed at by a bunch of elitist fucks who think you're worthless if you're not running a server.
Hmm, looks like you are right, gcc does appear to be part of the base system. I'm surprised this is allowed with the license incompatibility. My bad.
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
Here again we have a senseless battle of words and ridiculous
and elaborate theories without any basis.
First of all GPLv3 does not simply equate to only the Linux Kernel.
That not only is a gross understatement, but its baiting. Its
obvious that the wording is trying to create the setting for a holy
war "GNU/Linux" vs. "*BSD*". I hardly doubt that this is in the
interest of anyone.
As repeated thousands and thousand times before, the BSD license(s)
1. allow for anyone to take the code and to (eventualy) close it up.
2. allow for anyone to further develop this code and to use it
any obligation to return any improvements.
So why the big fuss when dual-licensed code ends up in GPL? Despite
Theo and others arguments, I somehow doubt the statement that
companies such as Microsoft who took BSD code actually returned any
code (and lets just forget about it even being any useful code!)
Youre not able to re-use GPL code? Too bad. Thats what your BSD
license doesnt allow you to do!
Think end-users (not corporations) give a flying duck about the GPL
license, let alone to move to FreeBSD? Youre delirious!
Not happy with your own (BSD) license? How about changing it then!
Dont mess with the GPL!
The real question ought to be: how can we cooperate together to
form that are usable
Well, not to do insinuate anything but merely point out the pointlessness of that argument: you might say that a country which has not illegalized murder is more free than the US, but that doesn't mean the country with legal murder is better. In fact, you might say the US citizen is more free, because he doesn't have to worry about someone murdering him with impunity.
What a joke. Aside from several hydrophobic rantings, the actions of RMS didn't amount to a hill of beans for Tivo or anyone else. They'll continue on, perhaps inconvenienced by GPL3, but they won't live in fear of the Unshowered One. All GPL3 does is marginally increase their software development costs.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
With PC-BSD, you can mount separate partitions on as many separate physical drives as you have. But you do have to mark the Advanced checkbox on the drives/partitions installation screen. The default is to install everything on one drive without requiring the user to know anything at all about the whole subject. But the installation screens do put this in small type. Maybe it should be made more obvious to people not wearing their glasses.
The developers are very amenable to usability suggestions. Go to pcbsd.org and mention it. It isn't some huge corporation doing this, you know, where your voice will never be heard. There are only a few developers and they frequently improve such things at user request. You sound like you're in a "too bad, it can't be changed, I'll have to stop using the software" mindset after dealing with other systems. Not so with this one. There are few enough testers that everyone's voice counts.
Version 1.4 will be out shortly. People are bashing away at RC2 at the moment.
Go to pcbsd.org and click on Download|Snapshots if you'd like to test it.
You just posted a day or two early, my friend.
Firstly, GPL is not anti-commercial. It is only a software licence that dictates under what circumstances (conditions) the software may be used.
Secondly, commercial companies are welcome to employ people to write GPL code, contribute, modify and enhance GPL software. If they distribute modified works then they are required to distribute the modifications in source form. Just like everyone else.
Thirdly, if Tora is incomplete and GPL anyone is welcome to pick up the project and continue on. That is if there is a need for it. Also, if it's any good.
The commercial companies have embraced GPL software because it is good quality. They are making a profit on the sale of support. RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, etc.. are contributing to the development but they are also profiting from it. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing "lovey dovey" either.
Like it or not some of the world's most talented coders are thiking individuals too. Many of them are concerned with individual freedom and like the idea of being a part of something bigger than themselves. Not all contributions to GPL software are made by individuals employed by corporations either. It doesn't matter though whether they are or not. Their code is still going to follow the rules of the GPL license if it is GPL licensed software.
Nothing anti-commercial going on here. Better look elsewhere for conspiracies and zealots. Just good 'ol common sense happenin'. Sorry.
MFG: "The system supports both the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) and WIMP (Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP) platforms."